Opinion
C/A No.: 1:11-cv-1425-JFA
03-15-2013
Rosa C. Hall, Plaintiff, v. Savannah River Nuclear Solutions and Lestine Bush, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Rosa C. Hall's Objection to the Report and Recommendation ("Report") issued by a Magistrate Judge in this case. In her Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged wrongful termination and discrimination. Defendants have moved for summary judgment, and the Magistrate Judge has recommended that this court grant Defendants' motion. Having reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff's Objection, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge has fairly and accurately summarized the facts and has applied the correct principles of law in her Report. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and fully incorporates it into this order.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of her right to file objections to the Report, which was entered on the docket on November 20, 2012. Plaintiff filed a one-page document generally objecting to the Report and denying that she engaged in workplace violence. She also takes issue with the facts recited in the report regarding the confrontation that led to her termination.
In her Objection to the Report, Plaintiff fails to even mention discrimination, much less to make an argument about whether she was meeting her employer's expectations at the time of her termination or to present any proof that the Defendant Savannah River Nuclear Solutions' reason for terminating her was pretextual. Though Plaintiff takes issue with the specifics of the confrontation that led to her termination, Plaintiff is unable to articulate any reason that her age, race, or gender discrimination claims should survive the motion for summary judgment. It appears that Plaintiff's Objection primarily deals with her state law claim for wrongful termination. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, this claim fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff has a statutory remedial scheme through which she may pursue her claim. See Barron v. Labor Finders of S.C., 713 S.E.2d 634 (2011); Lawson v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 532 S.E.2d 259, 261 (S.C. 2000) (stating that where a statute creates a substantive right and provides a remedy for infringement of that right, the plaintiff is limited to that statutory remedy). In the absence of any additional specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to given further explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff has failed to persuade this court that there is any reason not to fully adopt the Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned Report. Accordingly, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43).
IT IS SO ORDERED. March 15, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge