Wilson v. Wormuth et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 38 , and incorporates the Report by reference herein. As a result, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, ECF No. [ 25], and motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 32 , are DENIED; Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 24 , is GRANTED. And this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by the Honorable Sherri A. Lydon on November 13, 2023. (ahil)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Gregory Eugene Wilson,
Christine Wormuth, Secretary Department of
the Army; Mrs. Nichele Johnson, Training
Instructor Supervisor; Attorney General of the
U.S., Department of Justice; and United States
Attorney for District of South Carolina,
Plaintiff Gregory Eugene Wilson, proceeding pro se, sues his former federal employer,
alleging he was wrongfully terminated and was retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Pending before the court are a
motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Christine Wormuth and Nichelle Johnson, ECF No. 24; a
motion for default judgment by Plaintiff, ECF No. 25; and a motion for summary judgment by
Plaintiff, ECF No. 32. The motions have all been addressed in a Report and Recommendation (the
“Report”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 38.] The magistrate judge
recommends denying Plaintiff’s motions, granting Defendants’ motion, and dismissing Plaintiff’s
complaint with prejudice. Id. at 17. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the
procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if
they failed to do so. Id. at 18. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has
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 this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance
with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 38, and
incorporates the Report by reference herein. As a result, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment,
ECF No. 25, and motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 32, are DENIED; Defendants’ motion
to dismiss, ECF No. 24, is GRANTED. And this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 13, 2023
Columbia, South Carolina
Sherri A. Lydon
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?