Magazine-Ward v. Donahoe

Filing 47

ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation; granting 28 Motion for Summary Judgment. It is also ordered that counsel for Plaintiff, Thomas G. Eppink, shall ensure that Plaintiff receives a copy of this order. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/12/2013. (hcic, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Shirley Magazine-Ward,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:11-cv-02896-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Shirley Magazine-Ward (“Plaintiff”) filed the above action against Postmaster
General Patrick R. Donahoe (“Defendnt”), alleging violations of her former employer, the United
States Postal Service (“USPS”), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as
amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010), the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101–12213 (West 2006), the Americans with
Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”), Pub.L. 110–325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008), and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 791–94 (2006).
On January 11, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, along with a
memorandum in support. Plaintiff filed her Response on February 7, 2013. This matter is before the
Court after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate
Judge Kaymani D. West.1 In the R&R, the magistrate recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the R&R on June 14, 2013.2

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge West for pretrial handling.

2

The docket report in this case indicates that Plaintiff is represented by counsel, who, as of the
date of this order has neither been relieved nor filed a request to be relieved. Plaintiff’s counsel
filed no objections to the R&R. Plaintiff, however, filed her objections pro se and indicated in

For the following reasons, this Court adopts the R&R.
Background3
Plaintiff began working as a mail processor and clerk for Defendant at the USPS’s
processing and distribution facility (“P&DF”) in Florence, South Carolina in March 1997. On-thejob injuries she incurred prevent her from performing certain of her job duties. According to
Plaintiff, Defendant has refused to assign her to light/limited duty or otherwise accommodate her
disabilities. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that Defendant harassed her on account of her race and
disability.
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the district court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is
charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
The Court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the magistrate judge’s

those objections that she no longer has an attorney in the matter. [See Obj., Doc. # 45, at 4
(referencing a letter that does not appear to be attached to the objections).] Although the attorney
of record for Plaintiff in the case has filed no objections, out of an abundance of caution the
Court will consider Plaintiff’s pro se filing. See Anderson v. State of S.C., 542 F. Supp. 725,
727 (D.S.C. 1982) (considering pro se objections in case where petitioner was represented by
counsel but counsel did not file objections).
3

The facts of this case, including citations to the record, are discussed thoroughly in the
magistrate’s R&R. [See R&R, Doc. # 41, at 1–8.]
2

report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo
review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to
a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,
687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (“[D]e novo review [is] unnecessary in . . . situations when a party
makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation.”). The Court reviews only for clear error in the
absence of a specific objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th
Cir. 2005). Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the R&R, this Court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
Discussion
The Court reiterates that it may only consider objections to the R&R that direct this Court
to a specific error. Plaintiff’s objections rehash her initial arguments before the magistrate, simply
state backgrounds facts, attach various documents relating to her employment history, and fail to
direct this Court to any specific error by the magistrate. See Weber v. Aiken-Partain, No.
8:11–cv–02423, 2012 WL 489148, at *2 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2012) (noting that objections that merely
rehash arguments raised before, and addressed by, the magistrate are insufficient to direct the court
to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations); Monahan v. Burtt,
No. CIVA 205-2201-RBH, 2006 WL 2796390, at *9 (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2006) (“[A] district judge
should not have to guess what arguments an objecting party depends on when reviewing a
magistrate’s report.” (quoting Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988))).
Accordingly, none of the objections offered by Plaintiff meet the applicable standard for specificity

3

set above and this Court finds no clear error in the R&R. To the extent Plaintiff’s arguments
constitute specific objections the Court has reviewed the R&R de novo and agrees with the
magistrate’s findings. The issues in this case were correctly addressed by the magistrate and this
Court will not address the issues a second time.
Conclusion
The Court has thoroughly analyzed the entire record, including the R&R, objections to the
R&R, and the applicable law. The Court has further conducted the required review of all of the
objections and finds them without merit. For the reasons stated above and by the magistrate, the
Court hereby overrules all of Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the R&R.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
# 28] is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff, Thomas G. Eppink, shall ensure that
Plaintiff receives a copy of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 12, 2013

4