Bibbs v. New River Community and Technical College et al

Filing 140

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS and incorporates the findings of the Magistrate Judge as contained in the 127 Order; the Court ORDERS that the Plaintiff's 129 Objections to the Court's 4-12-13 Order (Doc. 127) be OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 6/24/2013. (cc: Magistrate Judge VanDervort; attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION

RICHARD L. BIBBS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-cv-00519

NEW RIVER COMMUNITY AND
TECHNICAL COLLEGE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s Objections to the Court’s 4-12-13 Order (Doc. 127)
(“Pl.’s Obj.”) (Document 129).

In this civil action, Plaintiff Richard L. Bibbs brings an

employment discrimination action against the New River Community and Technical College
(“NRCTC”) and various members of its staff alleging he was not hired for numerous positions due
to his race and gender. In October 2012, the assigned Magistrate Judge heard the parties’
arguments with respect to several discovery disputes. (See Order (Document 77)).1 Relevant to
this Order, Plaintiff challenged Defendants’ refusal to produce a copy of Defendant Ted Spring’s
Annual evaluation. (Id. at 2.) At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff argued that the evaluation
would inform him about why Defendant Spring was leaving his position of President of NRCTC
and that the voluntary or involuntary resignation could be relevant to his claim. (Id.) Defendants

1 By Order (Document 6) entered on August 2, 2011, this action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke
VanDervort, United States Magistrate Judge, for total pretrial management and submission of findings of fact and
recommendations for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636.

defended the challenge by asserting that the evaluation is confidential and irrelevant to this case.
(Id.)

In response, Magistrate Judge VanDervort ordered Defendants to submit Defendant

Spring’s evaluation materials for an in camera review, and he took the matter under advisement.
(Id. at 2-3.) On April 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge VanDervort ruled that the Evaluation of Dr.
Spring and all materials attached thereto
contain[ed] no indication why Dr. Spring may have left New River
Community and Technical College or information relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims. [The Magistrate Judge] further [found] that Dr.
Springs Evaluation and the documents attached to it should be
maintained under seal in this matter as they are personal and
confidential to Dr. Spring and reveal the intensive evaluation
process of the College.
(Order (Document 127) at 2.)2
In this submission, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s review and ruling pertaining
to the Annual Evaluation of Dr. Spring and all documents attached thereto. Plaintiff argues that
Defendant Spring’s Evaluation is “clearly relevant to the case at hand” inasmuch as it provides
“insight to how he performed his job.” (Pl.’s Obj. at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Spring
“was responsible for oversight of the Affirmative Action guidelines and employment of
underutilized minorities.” (Id. at 3.) He asserts that it is “unfathomable” the evaluation of Dr.
Spring’s performance over a three year period “would not contain some evidence that would be
relevant to plaintiff’s case.” (Id.) To date, Defendants have not filed a response or other
opposition. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the same should be
overruled.

2 The Court observes that the sealed materials were made a part of this Court’s docket and were presumably
provided to Plaintiff. (See Document 128). If indeed these materials were provided to Plaintiff, the instant objection
has been rendered moot.

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits any party to seek reconsideration of a
magistrate judge’s decisions regarding discovery disputes. “The district judge in the case must
consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or
is contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Everett v. Prison Health Serv., 412 F.App’x 604, 605 n.2
(4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished decision) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the
district court could not modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s order unless the
magistrate judge’s decision was ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to the law.’”) The Court is not
required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are
addressed.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

In addition, failure to file timely

objections constitutes a waiver of review. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour,
889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s April 12, 2013 Order, Plaintiff’s
Objections thereto, the disputed sealed materials which account for Defendant Spring’s Annual
Evaluation, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document 57)3.

The Court has given a de novo

review of Defendant Spring’s Annual Evaluation and the materials attached thereto and finds that
it contains no information which is relevant to Plaintiff’s asserted claims in this matter. As the
Magistrate Judge found, the reviewed materials do not offer any insight relative to the reason
Defendant Spring left the school, nor, does it offer any insight as to the “Affirmative Action
guidelines and employment of underutilized minorities” in the employment of this educational
institution. Instead, the evaluation mostly concerns the performance of the institution and the
President’s efforts to ensure the institution reached its organizational, financial and educational

3

See Order (Document 127) (discussion of evaluation and attachments).

3

goals. Therefore, the Court does not find that the Magistrate Judge’s decision is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. Consequently, the Court finds that Defendants should be relieved of any
obligation to produce the same to Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings of the Magistrate
Judge as contained in the Order (Document 127).

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s

Objections to the Court’s 4-12-13 Order (Doc. 127) (Document 129) be OVERRULED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge
VanDervort, to counsel of record, and to any unrepresented party.
ENTER: June 24, 2013

4