Smith v. Print Machine, Inc., The et al

Filing 43

ORDER adopting 27 Report and Recommendation and denying Smith's 26 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 1/26/2017. (mwal) (Main Document 43 replaced to correct case number on order on 1/26/2017) (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Louie Lawton Smith, Jr.,

C/A No. 3:16-2918-JFA-SVH

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
The Print Machine, Inc., a South Carolina
Corporation; Kasey Cooper Fay, President of
T.P.M., Inc.; Jim Norris, Human Resource
Manager of T.P.M.; Chris Fay, Vice President
of T.P.M.; Jerry Cooper, Chairman of T.P.M.;
and Matt Luther, T.P.M. Manager of
Columbia,
Defendants.
Louie Lawton Smith, Jr. (“Smith”), proceeding pro se, filed an action alleging wrongful
termination against his former employer, The Print Machine Inc., and some of its management
employees. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge. After the Magistrate Judge
authorized service of process, (ECF No. 22), Smith moved for summary judgement. (ECF No.
26). The sole issue addressed by this Report and Recommendation is whether the motion should
be denied without prejudice as premature.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that Smith’s motion for summary judgment is

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

premature, because no defendant had answered or made an appearance at the time of filing.
Since the filing of this motion, all defendants have made an appearance, filed an answer, and
moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 29 & 31). Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a subsequent
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 37).
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. Smith was advised of his
right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on December 6, 2016. However,
Smith failed to file any objections to the 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. 27). Smith’s initial motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26) is
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 26, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
2