Zeiny v. Washington Safety Management Solutions LLC

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING 48 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 35 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Washington Safety Management Solutions LLC, motion granted as to plaintiff's claims for disparate discipline, retaliation and defamation and denied as to plaintiff's claim for harassment/hostile environment; denying 41 Motion to Strike filed by Al Zeiny. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/30/2012. (ydav, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Al Zeiny,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Washington Safety Management
)
Solutions, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 1:09-cv-2821-TLW-JRM

ORDER
The plaintiff, Al Zeiny (“plaintiff”), brought this civil action on October 28, 2009, alleging
Title VII claims for hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation. (Doc. # 1). The
plaintiff also alleges a state law claim for defamation. (Doc. # 1). The defendant, Washington
Safety Management Solutions, LLC (“defendant”), filed a motion for summary judgment on March
30, 2011. (Doc. # 35). The plaintiff submitted a response in opposition (Doc. # 37), to which the
defendant filed a reply (Doc. # 40). On May 2, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion objecting to
affidavits attached to defendant’s reply memorandum. (Doc. # 41). The defendant submitted a
response in opposition (Doc. # 46), to which the plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. # 47).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey to whom this case had
previously been assigned. (Doc. # 48). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
District Court grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 35), in part, as to the
plaintiff’s disparate discipline, retaliation, and defamation claims and deny the motion, in part, as
1

to the plaintiff’s claim for harassment/hostile environment. (Doc. # 48). The Magistrate Judge also
recommends that the District Court deny the motion objecting to affidavits attached to defendant’s
reply memorandum (Doc. # 41). (Doc. # 48). The plaintiff and defendant filed objections to the
Report. (Docs. 49, 50). Each party also submitted a reply to the opposing party’s objections. (Docs.
53, 56). In conducting this review, 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. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report. In
addition, the Court has reviewed the objections, replies to the objections, and, independent of the
Report, the submitted record. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s rendition and assessment
of the facts set forth in the Report is accurate. Therefore, after careful consideration, the Court
ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 48). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 35) is GRANTED, in part, as to the plaintiff’s
claims for disparate discipline, retaliation, and defamation and DENIED, in part, as to the plaintiff’s
claim for harassment/hostile environment. The plaintiff’s motion objecting to affidavits attached
to defendant’s reply memorandum (Doc. # 41) is DENIED.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
March 30, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

3