Duheme v. Columbia/CSA-HS Greater Columbia Healthcare System LP

Filing 39

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 37 Report and Recommendation, granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 02/04/2014. (bshr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Curtis J. Duheme, C/A No.: 3:11-2902-JFA Plaintiff, v. ORDER Columbia CSA-HS Greater Columbia Healthcare System LP, d/b/a Providence Hospital, Defendant. Plaintiff Curtis J. Duheme (“Plaintiff”) brings the above-captioned case against his former employer, Columbia CSA-HS Greater Columbia Healthcare System LP, d/b/a Providence Hospital (“Defendant”). In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, as well as state law claims for breach of contract. This matter is before the court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she recommends that the court grant the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Report and Recommendation sets forth the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. 1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on October 25, 2013. However, Plaintiff did not file any objections. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to all claims. Plaintiff’s claims are, therefore, dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. February 4, 2014 Columbia, South Carolina Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?