O'Neal v. Youmans
Filing
65
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 63 Report and Recommendation, granting 60 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/22/2014. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Shirley I. O’Neal,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
John M. McHugh, Secretary of the Army, )
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A No. 3:12-733-CMC-SVH
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(Granting Summary Judgment)
Through this action Plaintiff Shirley I. O’Neal (“Plaintiff”) seeks recovery from her former
employer for alleged sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”). The matter is before the court on
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted
in full.
BACKGROUND
By order entered August 6, 2014, the court granted Defendant’s motion for sanctions,
limiting Plaintiff’s damages. ECF No. 58. Defendant, thereafter, moved for summary judgment on
the merits. ECF No. 60.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment was referred to Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”). The Magistrate Judge entered a Report on October 2, 2014, noting
that Plaintiff had failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment and recommending that the
motion be granted in full. ECF No. 63.
The parties were advised of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the
Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Id. Neither party has filed any
objections, which were due on October 20, 2014.
STANDARD
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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a
specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the absence of an objection, the court reviews the Report
and Recommendation only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court
need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”) (citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts the reasoning and
recommendations of the Report and grants Defendant’s motion. In doing so, the court relies on Rule
56(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows the court to “consider [a] fact
undisputed for purposes of the motion” when that party “fails to properly address another party’s
assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c)[.]”
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted in full.
Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant on all claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
October 22, 2014
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?