Lambert v. Centerra Group, Inc. et al

Filing 56

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 51 Report and Recommendation, GRANTING 36 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Centerra Group, Inc. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on March 6, 2020. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Melvin Monroe Lambert,

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-520-TLW

Plaintiff,
v.
Order
Centerra Group, Inc., United Professional
Pro-Force of Savannah River Local 125,
Defendant.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that
Defendant discriminated and retaliated against him because of him race. He also
asserts state law claims for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and negligent
supervision. ECF No. 1. This matter now comes before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (Report) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige
Gossett, ECF No. 51. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36, be granted. The Plaintiff
filed objections to the Report. ECF No. 53. The Defendant replied to the objections.
ECF No. 54. This matter is ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636

1

In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report,
objections thereto, the relevant filings, and the applicable law. After careful
consideration, the Court accepts the detailed legal analysis by the Magistrate Judge.
The Court will highlight certain facts important to its decision to accept the
detailed Report submitted by the Magistrate Judge:
1. The Plaintiff entered into a last chance agreement based on improper
conduct toward a female employee (R. at 2);
2. In January 2017, the Plaintiff was disciplined for being inattentive at
his duty station—allegedly for sleeping (R. at 2);
3. While the Plaintiff contends he was reading not sleeping, he conceded
in his testimony at the arbitration hearing that he was inattentive, and
discharged for “inattention to duty of a more serious nature.” (R. at 3, n.
3).
Certain language in the Report warrants inclusion in this Order. The Court
notes the analysis by the Magistrate Judge concluding that Plaintiff “Lambert cannot
show that Centerra’s proffered reason for his termination—inattention to duty—was
a pretext for retaliation.” (R. at 13). Further, the Report states the Plaintiff offers “no
evidence that the individuals who decided to terminate him did not honestly believe
he was inattentive to duty.” Id. The Report also states that “Centerra has
painstakingly explained, applying Fourth Circuit law, why those proffered
comparators are not meaningful…many of the employees identified by Lambert…are
themselves African American.” (R. at 11-12).

2

While it is unfortunate that the Plaintiff lost his position after many years of
employment, the Plaintiff’s objections to the Report do not offer facts that change the
analysis or conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge that the reason for
termination was inattention to duties as a security officer in Centerra’s protective
force at the Savannah River Site. The facts do not show an unlawful motive was the
basis for termination.
The Court has also carefully reviewed the additional briefing in this case in
light of the analysis set forth in the Report from the Magistrate Judge. For the
reasons stated in the Report and herein, the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, the
Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report, ECF No. 51, and Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36, is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Terry L. Wooten_________
Senior United States District Judge
March 6, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

3