Means v. South Carolina Department of Social Services
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING 41 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tomekia R Means, GRANTING 44 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by South Carolina Department of Social Services, as recommended 61 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 5/17/17. (sfla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tomekia R. Means,
South Carolina Department of Social
C.A. No. 6:15-4104-HMH-KFM
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Tomekia R. Means (“Means”) alleges
employment discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends granting the Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment and denying the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. After review, the court
adopts the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Means filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report
and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of
a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).
1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the
magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that Means’ objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate her
claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in
this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge McDonald’s Report and Recommendation.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, docket number 44, is
granted. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, docket number 41, is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 17, 2017
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The Plaintiff is hereby notified that she has the right to appeal this order within thirty
(30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
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?