Robinson v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, State of

Filing 43

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 40 Report and Recommendation, granting 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 8/31/2015. (cbru, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Elaine Robinson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
State of South Carolina Department
of Corrections,
Defendant.
______________________________

) Civil Action No.: 3:14-CV-391-MGL
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Elaine Robinson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against her employer Defendant
South Carolina Department of Corrections (“Defendant”), alleging race and gender
discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title
VII”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on January 26, 2015. (ECF No. 23.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this
employment discrimination matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
consideration of pretrial matters. The Magistrate Judge has prepared a thorough Report
and Recommendation which recommends that Defendant’s motion be granted. (ECF No.
40.)

Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on August 14, 2015

(ECF No. 41), and Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on August 18, 2015.
(ECF No. 42.) For the reasons set forth herein, this Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation and grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

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 Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and
standards of law on this matter, and the Court incorporates them herein. The Magistrate
Judge carefully considered Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and found: 1)
Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment based on the
record in this case; 2) Plaintiff cannot demonstrate, based on the evidence in the record,
a prima facie case of race and gender discrimination based on failure to promote Plaintiff
to one of the three positions for which she applied, or that Defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for hiring other candidates was a pretext for discrimination; and 3)
Plaintiff cannot show that any adverse action was causally connected to her participation
in protected activity to establish her retaliation claim. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 40 at
22.)
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 41.)

-2-

Plaintiff generally objects to the proposed ruling of the Report and Recommendation, and
further claims that the Magistrate Judge failed to review the evidence in the record in the
light most favorable to her. (ECF No. 41 at 4-5.) Plaintiff argues that she has presented
sufficient facts to substantiate each cause of action and to survive Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment. By way of objections, Plaintiff sets forth a listing of “facts and
arguments ignored by the court,” to which this Court has paid particular attention. To
summarize, Plaintiff maintains that the Magistrate Judge failed to address Plaintiff’s
extensive employment history, consider reasons why Plaintiff’s employment environment
was hostile, and credit her arguments concerning the alleged retaliatory acts taken against
her as an African American female.
Although proclaimed to be specific objections, Plaintiff’s objections are more general
and conclusory in nature, and instead reflect Plaintiff’s opposition to the Magistrate Judge’s
overall findings and recommended disposition. Still, the Court has conducted a de novo
review, and overrules Plaintiff’s objections, having found them to be substantial
restatements of arguments and factual assertions made before and considered by the
Magistrate Judge on the above-mentioned issues. The Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge prepared an extensive and detailed Report and Recommendation that appropriately
addressed the parties’ arguments in light of the entirety of the evidence presented and the
applicable law. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
recitation of the facts and construing the facts and inferences to be drawn in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that none of Plaintiff’s objections merit rejection of the
Report and its well-reasoned analysis. The Court finds no error.

-3-

CONCLUSION
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court agrees with
the thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s objections are
overruled, and the Report is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Therefore, it
is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED
and this action hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 31, 2015

-4-