Banks v. McHugh

Filing 40

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 38 Report and Recommendation, granting 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 08/22/2013. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Pensicola Banks,
Plaintiff,
v.
John M. McHugh
Secretary Department of the Army,
Defendant.
_________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:12-cv-00032-JFA

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for summary judgment filed by Defendant John M. McHugh (“Defendant”).
ECF No. 24. In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff Pensicola Banks (“Plaintiff”)
alleges race discrimination and retaliation on the part of Defendant in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. Plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to Defendant’s motion, ECF No. 30, and Defendant replied, ECF No. 36.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should
be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and this court incorporates those facts and standards 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(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). 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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).

Plaintiff was advised of her right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on July 26, 2013.

However, Plaintiff did not file objections.

In the absence of specific

objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give an 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, as well as the
Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and
grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 24.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 22, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2