Smith v. Palmetto Denture Care PA

Filing 110

ORDER adopting 105 Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part 89 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 6/24/2109.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Tonda Smith,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Palmetto Denture Care PA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

Case No. 7:17-cv-01043-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
ECF No. 89. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. ECF
Nos. 100, 102. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2),
(D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald
for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On May 28,
2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion be granted
with respect to Plaintiff’s claims for sexually hostile work environment and race
discrimination; the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied with
respect to Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation. ECF No. 105. The Magistrate Judge advised
the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the
serious consequences if he failed to do so. Neither party has filed objections, and the
time to do so has lapsed.
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. 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).
The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [89] is
GRANTED in part with respect to Plaintiff’s causes of action for sexually hostile work
environment and race discrimination and DENIED in part with respect to Plaintiff’s cause
of action for retaliation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
June 24, 2019
Spartanburg, South Carolina