Cornelius v. McHugh

Filing 51

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 43 Report and Recommendation, denying 40 Motion for Reconsideration, denying 30 Motion for Hearing, granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 7/13/2015. (cbru, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Michael Cornelius,
Plaintiff,
vs.
John M. McHugh, Secretary of the
Army,
Defendant.
______________________________

) Civil Action No.: 3:14-cv-00234-MGL
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)

Pro se Plaintiff Michael Cornelius, filed this action on January 27, 2015, raising
claims under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act,
5 U.S.C. § 552a, against Defendant John M. McHugh, Secretary of the Army (“Defendant”).
(ECF No. 1.) On November 6, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff filed a response
in opposition on November 10, 2014, (ECF No. 29), after an order was issued pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) advising Plaintiff of the motion for
summary judgment and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to
the motion. (ECF No. 26.) Defendant filed a reply in support of its Motion for Summary
Judgment on November 20, 2014. (ECF No. 35.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for consideration
of pretrial matters. The Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation on May 22, 2015, which recommends that Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted. (ECF No. 43.) The Magistrate Judge also considered

Plaintiff’s non-dispositive motions for a hearing (ECF No. 30) and for reconsideration of the
court’s prior order denying Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 40.)
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 18, 2015 (ECF
No. 48) after this Court granted Plaintiff’s request for additional time to do so. (ECF No. 45
& 46.) The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and
standards of law on this matter, and the Court incorporates them herein. For the reasons
set forth below, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The

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 determination of any portions of the 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 may
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge set forth the relevant facts taken in the light most favorable
to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 43 at 2.) The Magistrate Judge then fully considered Plaintiff’s
claims with regard to disclosure of information under the Privacy Act, specifically Plaintiff’s
allegation that information from certain employment-related background checks was
insufficiently safeguarded and improperly disclosed. (ECF No. 43 at 5.) Upon review of
the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge found that because Plaintiff cannot
-2-

demonstrate any intentional, willful, or flagrant disclosure of his personal information, no
reasonable fact finder could conclude that Plaintiff’s rights under the Privacy Act were
violated as alleged, and that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. (ECF No. 43 at
8.) Next, the Magistrate Judge turned to Plaintiff’s denial of access to records under the
Privacy Act and Denial of Information under FOIA claims, specifically Plaintiff’s allegation
that Defendant denied Plaintiff access to his records in violation of the Privacy Act and
FOIA. (ECF No. 43 at 9.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that no reasonable fact finder
could determine that Defendant denied Plaintiff access to records in violation of the Privacy
Act or denied the release of records in violation of FOIA, particularly as Plaintiff failed to
present any evidence that he followed Agency procedures for making a FOIA request or
exercised his opportunity to review investigation information in accordance with the Privacy
Act. (ECF No. 43 at 10.) Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge also recommends that
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted as to Plaintiff’s denial of access to
records and denial of information claims under the Privacy Act and FOIA, respectively.
In his objections, Plaintiff claims that the Magistrate Judge ignored his case and
failed to discuss his alleged FOIA and Privacy Act claims. (ECF No. 48 at 2.) This claim,
however, is simply incorrect. As noted above, the Magistrate Judge fully considered each
of Plaintiff’s claims in light of the evidence in the record. Plaintiff further re-argues and
complains about an alleged discovery violation on the part of Defendant and Plaintiff’s
related Motion for Sanctions which has been previously handled and even reconsidered
by the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 48 at 3.) Finally, Plaintiff claims that the Report and
Recommendation has misinterpreted and incorrectly evaluated several facts, however, the
alleged factual errors suggested by Plaintiff in his objections are insufficient to alter the
-3-

Magistrate Judge’s sound recommendation and legal analysis. Thus, although the Court
must liberally construe Plaintiff’s claims and has done so here, the Court ultimately agrees
with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge after a thorough review of Plaintiff’s objections
and evidence and upon consideration of the record. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.1
CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the objections made by Plaintiff and has
conducted the required de novo review. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff’s motion for a
hearing (ECF No. 30) and motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 40) concerning Plaintiff’s
motion for sanctions are denied based on this Court’s discretion concerning these matters
and for the reasons set forth in this order and in the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, this Court finding no error in the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July 13, 2015

1

On July 9, 2015 Plaintiff filed a pleading asking this Court to grant his reply and
objection and to deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on Defendant’s
failure to respond to his objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 49).
The Court declines to do so—Defendant is not required to file a reply to a response and
in fact Local Rule 7.07 provides that replies are discouraged.
-4-

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

-5-