Terry v. Beaufort County School District, The

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON 17 Report and Recommendation: The court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs motion to remand (ECF No.7) is granted and this case is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Beaufort County. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/3/2018. (vdru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Christine Terry,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
The Beaufort County School District,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No. 9:17-3097-MBS

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Christine Terry filed the within action in the Court of Common Pleas for Beaufort
County on October 4, 2017, alleging her former employer, Defendant The Beaufort County School
District, terminated her after she suffered a permanent impairment of her vision. Plaintiff brings the
following causes of action: Violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (Count I); and
Wrongful Termination/Discrimination on Account of Handicap (Count II). Defendant removed the
action to this court on November 15, 2017, asserting the court has federal question jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1331. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pretrial handling.
This matter came before the court on motion to remand filed by Plaintiff on December 15,
2017. Plaintiff asserts that removal is improper because Defendant, as a political subdivision of the
State of South Carolina, has not waived sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Defendant filed a response in opposition on December 29, 2017 in
which it asserts that a local school district is not an arm of the state. See Child Evangelism
Fellowship of S.C. v. Anderson Sch. Dist., 438 F. Supp. 2d 780 (D.S.C. 2006). Plaintiff filed a
reply to Defendant’s response on January 5, 2018, in which she observed that Defendant failed to

address the factors recited in Grady v. Spartanburg Sch. Dist. Seven, C/A No. 7:13-cv-02020-GRA,
2014 WL 1159406, *2 (D.S.C. March 21, 2014) regarding the applicability of Eleventh Amendment
immunity (“‘(1) [W]hether any judgment against the entity as defendant will be paid by the State or
whether any recovery by the entity as plaintiff will inure to the benefit of the state; (2) the degree of
autonomy exercised by the entity, including such circumstances as who appoints the entity’s
directors or officers, who funds the entity, and whether the State retains a veto over the entity's
concerns; (3) whether the entity is involved with state concerns as distinct from non-state concerns,
including local concerns; and (4) how the entity is treated under state law, such as whether the
entity’s relationship with the State is sufficiently close to make the entity an arm of the State.’”)
(quoting S.C. Dep’t of Disabilities & Special Needs v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 535 F.3d 300, 303
(4th Cir. 2008)). Plaintiff also pointed out that Defendant pleaded sovereign immunity as a bar to
claims for money damages. See Answer, ECF No. 4, ¶ 51.
On July 16, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
noted a lack of consensus within the District of South Carolina concerning whether school districts
are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and found that Defendant failed to present sufficient
information to evaluate the Grady factors. The Magistrate Judge also observed that Defendant’s
removal of the case to federal court did not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity because the
State has not waived immunity as to claims arising under the ADA. See Means v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., Civ. A. No. 6:15-4104-HMH-KFM, 2017 WL 2155431 (D.S.C. May 17, 2017). Accordingly,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion to remand be granted. No party filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
2

no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record.

The court adopts the Report and

Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No.
7) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 3, 2018

3