Brooker v. INVISTA S.a`.r.l. LLC

Filing 69

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, for 59 Report and Recommendation, 48 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by INVISTA S.a`.r.l. LLC Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on March 29, 2019. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Olden Brooker,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
INVISTA S.à.r.l. LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No.: 3:17-148-TLW
ORDER

Plaintiff Olden Brooker filed this action against his former employer alleging he was
wrongfully terminated. ECF Nos. 1, 24. The matter now comes before this Court for review of
the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) filed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to
whom this case is assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). ECF No. 59. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends
granting Defendant INVISTA S.à.r.l. LLC’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 48, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). ECF No. 59. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on December 14,
2018, ECF No. 63, and Defendant filed its reply on January 4, 2019. ECF No. 67. This case is now
ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. In conducting its review, 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 findings 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 conclusions 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. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the
Report, the objections, the relevant filings, and the applicable law. After careful consideration, the
Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s detailed factual and legal analysis in the Report, which
concludes the Plaintiff (i) did not present a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation, and
(ii) did not present evidence that a defamatory statement was made or offer any evidence regarding
the source of an alleged statement. To the extent the Plaintiff’s objections present new evidence
not previously raised in their pleadings or briefing, the Court finds this is new evidence that was
not presented to the Magistrate Judge in Plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment.
While a new claim is not procedurally proper, even considering that evidence, it does not change
the analysis concluding that summary judgment is appropriate.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Report, ECF No. 59, is ACCEPTED, and the
Objections to the Report, ECF No. 63, are OVERRULED. For the reasons stated in the Report
and those stated herein, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 48, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
March 29, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina