Frazier v. Wal-Mart

Filing 66

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Wal-Mart, adopting 63 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/21/12. (awil)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Corey L. Frazier, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) Wal-Mart, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) C.A. No.: 6:10-cv-02007-JMC ORDER This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), [Doc. 63], filed on February 1, 2012, recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 45] as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for both his race discrimination claim and his failure to pay claim be granted. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates herein without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties were notified of their right to file objections [Doc. 63-1]. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a timely filed objection, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case. The court accepts the Report of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 45] is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina February 21, 2012

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?