Evans v. Wilson Trucking Company et al

Filing 63

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 57 Report and Recommendation, granting 39 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Keith Doonan, Wilson Trucking Company, Tim Stokes. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/15/16. (alew, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
Civil Action No.: 6:15-887-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
vs.
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
Wilson Trucking Company, Keith
)
Doonan, and Tim Stokes,
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
Adam Evans,

Plaintiff Adam Evans (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against his former employer,
Wilson Trucking Company, former manager, Keith Doonan, and former dispatch
supervisor, Tim Starkes1 (collectively “Defendants”), asserting that Defendants
discriminated against him because of his race and retaliated against him because of
conversations he had with Doonan, Starkes, and regional safety manager, Tim Taylor, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title 42, United
States Code, Section 1981. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial handling and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”).
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 39.) On July 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge McDonald issued a Report
recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (ECF No.
57.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 57

1
Mr. Starkes is incorrectly named in the complaint as Tim Stokes.

1

at 23.) Plaintiff filed no objections by the deadline of August 12, 2016, and his Motion for
an Extension of Time (ECF No. 59) in which to do so was denied for lack of good cause
shown (ECF No. 61).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report or may recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the Court
finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and to evince no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report is incorporated herein by reference. Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 15, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2