Bandara v. Mann et al

Filing 124

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment for 116 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on June 5, 2018. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Civil Action No. 3:16-3212-TLW

Dr. D.M. Indika Bandara,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Dan Mann, Richland-Lexington Airport
District Commission Members, AAE
Director; James A. Compton, RichlandLexington Airport Commission Members
(Chairman); Carol Fowler, RichlandLexington Airport District Commission
Members; F. Xavier Starkes, Esq.,
Richland-Lexington Airport District
Commission Members; William Dukes,
Richland-Lexington Airport District
Commission Members also known as Bill,
Jerrod F. Howard, Richland-Lexington
Airport District Commission Members;
Richard McIntyre, Richland-Lexington
Airport District Commission Members; Dan
P. Bell, Richland-Lexington Airport District
Commission Members; Hazel L. Bennett,
Richland-Lexington Airport District
Commission Members; D.J. Carson,
Richland-Lexington Airport District
Commission Members; David N. Jordan,
Richland-Lexington Airport District
Commission Members; James L. Whitmire,
Richland-Lexington Airport District
Commission Members; Duane Cooper,
Richland-Lexington Airport District
Commission Members; Lynne Douglas,
Richland-Lexington Airport District
Commission Members,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Dr. D.M. Indika Bandara, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2016. ECF No. 1. On November 29, 2017, Defendants filed a

1

motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 94. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion
and a cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 108, to which Defendants responded, ECF
No. 113.
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case had
previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2),
(D.S.C.). ECF No. 116. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment, ECF No. 94, be granted, and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,
ECF No. 108, be denied. ECF No. 116. On April 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report.
ECF No. 122. Defendants filed a reply on April 18, 2018. ECF No. 123. This matter is now ripe
for disposition.
In reviewing the Report, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections…. The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified finding or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusion of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of this standard, the Court closely reviewed de novo the Report, Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report, the other related filings, the relevant law, and the record in this case. The
Report notes that Plaintiff offered no authority suggesting that being an independent taxi driver is
2

a protected class under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Report also notes that Plaintiff did not
show any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants acted with or
were motivated by discriminatory intent toward immigrants or that the regulations Plaintiff
challenges were based on her national origin. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s objections do not
change the conclusion reached by the Magistrate Judge that Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment should be granted.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 122, are
OVERRULED, and the Report, ECF No. 116, is ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by
the Magistrate Judge, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 94, is GRANTED
and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 108, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
June 5, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

3