Fludd v. Byrd et al
Filing
32
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Richland County EMS, adopting 29 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 2/13/2015. (mdea )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Tracie Fludd,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Richland County EMS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3:13-2635-MBS
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Tracie Fludd (“Plaintiff”) brings this action alleging race discrimination and
retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq., against her former employer, Richland County EMS (“Defendant”).
This matter is before the court on motion of Defendant to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment, filed on August 29, 2014. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on
September 22, 2014 (ECF No. 23), to which Defendant filed a reply on October 2, 2014 (ECF No.
25). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2012) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for a Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on January 21, 2015, recommending that
Defendant be granted summary judgment. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation on February 9, 2015. ECF No. 30. Defendant replied to Plaintiff’s objections on
February 11, 2015. ECF No. 31.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this
court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
1
review of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is made.
Id. The district court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982).
The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s objections do not direct the court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47-48. Nevertheless, the court has conducted
a de novo review of the issues in this case and concludes that the Magistrate Judge has properly
applied the applicable law. The court specifically reviewed those conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge which were mentioned in Plaintiff’s objections. First, the Magistrate Judge properly found
that Plaintiff failed to identify any similarly situated white employee that engaged in the same
conduct as Plaintiff without mitigating circumstances who was treated differently by Defendant.
Plaintiff’s recitation of the February 1, 2012, backing incident in which Plaintiff was disciplined for
hitting a bay door while driving an ambulance is unavailing because the other employee involved
in that incident who was not reprimanded had, by the Plaintiff’s own admission, mitigating
circumstances, i.e., he was “on probation.” ECF No. 30 at 1. Second, even assuming that the
undated complaint to County Councilman Norman Jackson, as related by Plaintiff in her objections,
was a protected activity and occurred after Plaintiff’s EEOC complaint, ECF No. 31 at 2, the
Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Plaintiff nonetheless failed to present sufficient evidence
to show that Defendant’s proffered reasons for dismissing Plaintiff were false or were otherwise a
pretext for retaliation.
2
Based upon the foregoing, the court adopts and incorporates herein by reference the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The court grants the Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 18).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Court Judge
February 13, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
3
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?