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)

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