Smith v. Daimler Trucks NA LLC et al

Filing 57

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting in part, denying in part 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Daimler Trucks NA LLC, Daimler Trucks NA Disability Benefits Plan, Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp, granting 32 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Tammie Smith, adopting 55 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/25/16. (alew, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
) Civil Action No.: 7:14-2058-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
Opinion and Order
Daimler Trucks NA, LLC, Freightliner )
)
Custom Chassis Corp., and Daimler
)
Trucks NA Disability Benefits Plan,
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
Tammie Smith,

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) (ECF No. 55) of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald
recommending that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) as to
the Count VIII claim for violation of ERISA Section 502 be granted and
Defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45) be granted as to
Plaintiff’s ADA accommodation claim and denied as to all other claims.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02
D.S.C., this Family and Medical Leave Act matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Kevin F. McDonald, for consideration of pretrial matters.

The

magistrate judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation. (ECF No.
55.) Objections to the Report were due by February 8, 2016. Neither party has
filed Objections.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a
final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.

1

261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any
portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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 of
the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error.

Accordingly, the Court

ACCEPTS and incorporates the Report, (ECF No. 55), by reference into this
Order. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 32) as to the Count VIII claim for violation of ERISA Section 502 be
granted, Defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45) be
granted as to Plaintiff’s ADA accommodation claim and denied as to all other
claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
February 25, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina

2