From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bright v. White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION
Nov 13, 2013
C/A NO. 0:12-2259-CMC-PJG (D.S.C. Nov. 13, 2013)

Opinion

C/A NO. 0:12-2259-CMC-PJG

11-13-2013

Glenn D. Bright, Plaintiff, v. Chris White; Ken Pollet; and P. Kaufmann, Inc., Defendants.


OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint asserting a claim of employment discrimination based upon race.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(g), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On October 23, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss Defendants White and Pollet be granted, as Title VII claims cannot be pursued against individual defendants. 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 filed objections to the Report on November 6, 2013.

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).

After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff's objections, the court agrees with the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is adopted in its entirety by reference in this order.

Plaintiff's objection is that he seeks to "allow the claims against White, Pollet and P. Kaufmann to remain." Obj. at 2 (ECF No. 77). However, as correctly noted by the Magistrate Judge, under Fourth Circuit law, Title VII claims cannot proceed against individuals.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 59) is granted. Defendants Chris White and Ken Pollet are dismissed from this action.

This matter is returned to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for further pretrial proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
November 13, 2013


Summaries of

Bright v. White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION
Nov 13, 2013
C/A NO. 0:12-2259-CMC-PJG (D.S.C. Nov. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Bright v. White

Case Details

Full title:Glenn D. Bright, Plaintiff, v. Chris White; Ken Pollet; and P. Kaufmann…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION

Date published: Nov 13, 2013

Citations

C/A NO. 0:12-2259-CMC-PJG (D.S.C. Nov. 13, 2013)