Wilson v. Cloyd et al

Filing 90

ORDER adopting 86 Report and Recommendation, granting 65 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 7/7/2016. (cbru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
PHYLLIS A. WILSON,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
vs.
§
§
RICHLAND COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA, §
Defendant.
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-01391-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This case was filed as a employment discrimination action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United
States Magistrate Judge suggesting that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. The
Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of
South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on June 15, 2016, and the Clerk of Court entered
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report on July 6, 2016. The Court has reviewed the objections, but finds
them to be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
In Plaintiff’s objections, she makes no specific objections to the Report. Instead, she
generally reiterates claims that the Magistrate Judge has already considered and rejected. Nowhere
in Plaintiff’s objections does she meaningfully counter any of the core legal determinations of the
Magistrate Judge, such as her careful determination that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of
showing that Defendant’s purported reasons for not rehiring her were untrue or lacking in
credibility. Because the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of those issues, it need
not discuss them again here. Therefore, it will overrule Plaintiff’s objections.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein.
Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 7th day of July, 2016, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are 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.

2