Evans v. Stanton

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 10 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 06/13/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Reginald Evans,

C/A No. 3:16-1585-JFA

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Cheryl M. Stanton, Executive Director of
South Carolina Department of
Employment and Workforce (D.E.W.),
Defendant.

Reginald Evans (“Plaintiff”) filed this pro se action alleging a violation of his
constitutional rights. Plaintiff seeks both compensatory damages and injunctive relief. (ECF No.
1). Plaintiff’s suit alleges that Cheryl M. Stanton (“Defendant”) discriminated against him based
on his race, color, disability, and age when Defendant reduced his unemployment benefits and
failed to accommodate his disability. Id at 2.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss the complaint in this case
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 10). The Report sets
forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates
those facts and standards without a recitation.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).

Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on May 27, 2016. Plaintiff filed a response to the report on June 10, 2016, but failed to make
any specific objections to the report. (ECF No. 13). Instead of making specific objections to the
Report’s findings, Plaintiff seems to believe that the authority cited by the Magistrate in the
Report causes Plaintiff to be entitled to an opportunity to conduct discovery and to present facts
to a jury. 2 (ECF No. 13).
Plaintiff never attempted to address the substantive findings of the Report that Plaintiff
had failed to state a viable civil rights action based on discrimination. Instead, Plaintiff merely
filed a response to the Magistrate’s findings that consisted of three vague sentences that cannot
possibly be considered specific objections to the Magistrate’s Report. In the absence of specific
objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an explanation
for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 13, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2

Specifically, Plaintiff states: “The Report cites Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
This should allow Plaintiff the opportunity to conduct discover [sic] to present facts to a jury in the
interest of justice.” (ECF No. 13 p. 2).
2