Vandiver v. Wal-Mart Inc et al

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 18 ), and the Court partially dismisses the Amended Complaint as to Defendants Kristen Swanson, Quantinisha Grove, Eric Butler, Alvin Berry, Tanya Griggs, and Joseph Conway. The action remains pending against Defendant Walmart Stores, Inc. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/6/2018. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Denzel Devon Vandiver,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Kristen Swanson; Quantinisha Grove; )
Eric Butler; Alvin Berry; Walmart Stores, )
Inc.; Tanya Griggs; and Joseph Conway,)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 8:17-cv-3147-BHH

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e through 2000e-17, alleging wrongful termination and
gender discrimination.

In addition to naming his employer, Walmart Stores, Inc.

(“Walmart”), as a Defendant, Plaintiff names several supervisors and coworkers as
Defendants: Kristen Swanson, Quantinisha Grove, Eric Butler, Alvin Berry, Tanya Griggs,
and Joseph Conway.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)
(D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary
determinations. On February 13, 2018, Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West issued a report
and recommendation (“Report”) outlining Plaintiff’s claims and recommending that the
Court partially dismiss the Amended Complaint in this action insofar as it names Kristen
Swanson, Quantinisha Grove, Eric Butler, Alvin Berry, Tanya Griggs, and Joseph Conway
as Defendants in Plaintiff’s Title VII claim. The Magistrate Judge also issued a separate
order authorizing service of process on Plaintiff’ employer, Defendant Walmart.
Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right

to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To
date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
findings. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s
Report (ECF No. 18), and the Court partially dismisses the Amended Complaint as to
Defendants Kristen Swanson, Quantinisha Grove, Eric Butler, Alvin Berry, Tanya Griggs,
and Joseph Conway. The action remains pending against Defendant Walmart Stores, Inc.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 6, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina

3