Debnam v. CB&I/WECTEC et al

Filing 44

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 40 Report and Recommendation, accepting the Report and Dismissing the Complaint. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on July 29, 2021. (kbos)

0:16-cv-03424-TLW

Date Filed 07/29/21

Entry Number 44

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Russ Von’D Debnam,

Case No. 0:16-cv-03424-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Order

CB&I; and WECTEC Global Project
Services,
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Russ Von’D Debnam, proceeding pro se, filed this employment
discrimination claim in October 2016 against Defendants CB&I and WECTEC Global
Project Services.1 ECF No. 1-1. In May 2017, Plaintiff informed the Court that
Defendants had filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. ECF No.
29. In response, the magistrate judge stayed further proceedings pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and directed Plaintiff to provide status updates every 90 days. ECF
No. 30.
In August 2017, Plaintiff informed the Court that he had filed a claim in the
bankruptcy case. ECF No. 36. He did not file any further status updates.
In April 2021, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute based on his failure to provide

His initial complaint was filed in October 2016. ECF No. 1. After two proper form
orders from the assigned magistrate judge, ECF Nos. 8, 12, he filed a revised
complaint in December 2016 that the Clerk docketed as ECF No. 1-1.
1

1

0:16-cv-03424-TLW

Date Filed 07/29/21

Entry Number 44

Page 2 of 3

status updates. ECF No. 37. He responded that he “was awarded” in the bankruptcy
case for “wrongful termination,” but that he “would love to continue” this case for
“direct discrimination.” ECF No. 39.
The magistrate judge then issued a Report and Recommendation (Report)
recommending that the case be dismissed. The magistrate judge reviewed the docket
in the bankruptcy case, determining that Plaintiff only filed one claim relating to this
case and was ordered to be paid a total of $134,037.53 on his claim. The magistrate
judge recommends dismissal of this case because all of Plaintiff’s claims that were or
could have been brought against Defendants were in the jurisdiction of the
bankruptcy court and that his claims have now been resolved. ECF No. 40.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, stating only that his access to law
libraries has been limited by COVID-19. ECF No. 42. This matter is now ripe for
decision.
In reviewing the Report, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to
which any party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound
by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains
responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other
standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections
are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review
of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify
any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.

Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
2

0:16-cv-03424-TLW

Date Filed 07/29/21

Entry Number 44

Page 3 of 3

In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo,
the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report and the objections,
for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Report is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff
filed a claim in the bankruptcy case regarding his allegations in this case and as he
acknowledges, that claim was resolved in his favor, resulting in a payment to him of
$134,037.53. Accordingly, his objections are OVERRULED. His Complaint is hereby
DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
July 29, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina

3