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, )

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