Hamilton v. Kimbrell's of South Carolina, Inc.

Filing 86

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report, ECF No. 85 . For the reasons stated in the Report, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71 , is granted and the § 1981 claims stated in the Complaint, ECF No. 1 , are DISMISSED. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 1/29/2020. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Joan B. Hamilton,

Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-02735-TLW

PLAINTIFF,
v.

Order

Kimbrell’s of South Carolina, Inc.,
DEFENDANT.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that
Defendant discriminated and retaliated against her because of her race. She also
asserts state law claims for breach of contract, breach of contract with fraudulent
intent, and defamation. ECF No. 1. This matter now comes before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) filed by United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas E. Rodgers, III, ECF No. 8. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71, be
granted as to Plaintiff’s § 1981 claims and that the court decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The deadline to file
objections to the Report was January 6, 2020. Plaintiff filed no objections challenging
the factual and legal conclusions set forth in the Report. This matter is ripe for
disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the
1

absence of objections, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead
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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Even in light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the
relevant filings, and the applicable law. After careful consideration, the Court accepts
the detailed legal and factual analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the
Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report, ECF No. 85. For the reasons stated in the
Report, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71, is granted and the
§ 1981 claims stated in the Complaint, ECF No.1, are DISMISSED. The Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___s/Terry L. Wooten_________
Senior United States District Judge

January 29, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

2