Flournoy v. Spartanburg Regional Medical Center
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 64 ; granting 35 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 40 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/2/2014.(gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Shaneka Sharday Flournoy,
Spartanburg Regional Medical Center,
Civil Action No. 7:12-2792-TMC
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling.
Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that the court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) and
deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff was advised of her right
to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 64-1.) However, Plaintiff has not filed objections and
the time to do so has now run.1
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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
On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff appealed a text order granting Defendant an extension of the dates in the court’s
scheduling order (ECF No. 49). (ECF No. 58.) While that order was on appeal, the magistrate judge issued her
Report on the summary judgment motions. Although the appealed text order did not directly relate to the Report’s
content, the court deferred ruling on the Report until the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the text order.
The Fourth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on December 19, 2013. (ECF No. 68.)
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).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No.
64) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 35) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
January 2, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?