Colon v. Publix Super Markets Inc

Filing 44

ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation; granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 43 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 10/17/2018.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Ricardo Colon,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Publix Super Markets Inc.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Case No. 7:17-cv-02187-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging causes of action
for breach of contract and race and national origin discrimination and retaliation in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. ECF No. 15. 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 7, 2018, Defendant
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

ECF No. 18.

Plaintiff filed a Response in

Opposition, Defendant filed a Reply, and Plaintiff filed a Sur-Reply. ECF Nos. 26, 28, 31.
A hearing was held before the Magistrate Judge on August 15, 2018. ECF No. 38.
On September 25, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that
the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. ECF No. 34. 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. Plaintiff has filed no objections, and
the time to do so has passed.
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 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 Report’s
recommendation. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report by reference in this Order.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [18] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
October 17, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina