Adams-Heggins v. South Carolina State University et al

Filing 70

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing plaintiff's case with prejudice, for 54 Report and Recommendation, 68 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on September 30, 2013. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Martha Jean Adams-Heggins,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina State University, Dr. Louis )
Whitesides, Negati Engec,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No.: 5:11-2345-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Martha Jean Adams-Heggins filed a complaint alleging job discrimination by
Defendant South Carolina State University and Civil Conspiracy by Defendants Dr. Louis
Whitesides and Negati Engec. (Doc. # 1). South Carolina State University, Dr. Louis Whitesides,
and Negati Engec (“Defendants”) filed motions for summary judgment on October 9, 2012.
(Docs. #29, 34). Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett filed a Report and Recommendation on July
16, 2013, (Doc. #54), recommending that the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment be
granted because she found that Plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of gender
discrimination. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff presented no evidence
supporting the fourth element of the McDonnell-Douglas test. Thereafter, Plaintiff retained new
counsel who filed objections to the Report specifically relating to the fourth element of the
McDonnell-Douglas test. Thus, the Court recommitted the original Report and Recommendation

1

to the Magistrate Judge to determine if the objections changed the analysis or conclusion reached
in the original Report.
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Supplemental Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on September 12, 2013, by Magistrate Judge Paige J.
Gossett, (Doc. #68), to whom this case was previously assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate
Judge again recommends granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report on September 19, 2013. (Doc. # 69). In conducting this 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). This Court carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental Report
and Recommendation. Further, this Court has reviewed the evidence of record as outlined by the
Magistrate Judge and the cases cited in the Report. The Court has reviewed the memoranda filed,
cases cited therein, and the objections to the Report filed by the Plaintiff. More specifically, the
Court notes the following cases relevant to the issues raised: Gerner v. Cnty. of Chesterfield, Va.,
674 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2012); Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277 (4th
Cir. 2004); Smith v. Martek Biosciences Kingstree Corp., 2013 WL 4042159 (D.S.C. Aug. 6,
2

2013);

and Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 461 (2d Cir. 2001).

Additionally, the evidence cited in this case does not support a finding of discrimination or
pretext.
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, as noted,
the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report, objections, evidence of record,
and relevant cases, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. #68). The Plaintiff’s
objections, (Doc. # 69), are OVERRULED. The Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
September 30, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

3