Brailsford v. Wateree Cmty. Action, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:13–3101–MBS.
| Decision Date | 24 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:13–3101–MBS. |
| Citation | 135 F.Supp.3d 433 |
| Parties | Fredrica M. BRAILSFORD, Plaintiff, v. WATEREE COMMUNITY ACTION, INC., James L. Coleman, Jr., Ernestine Lowery, LaShonna Meagley, Joseph Davis, and Laurey Carpenter, in their professional and individual capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Fredrica M. Brailsford, Sumter, SC, pro se.
D.L. Dirk Aydlette, III, Robert Hayne Hodges, III, Gignilliat Savitz and Bettis, Columbia, SC, for Defendants.
MARGARET B. SEYMOUR
, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Fredrica M. Brailsford ("Plaintiff") brings this action alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; violation of the South Carolina Whistleblower Act; and defamation against her former employer, Wateree Community Action, Inc., and individual defendants James L. Coleman, Jr., Ernestine Lowery,1 LaShonna Meagley, Joseph Davis, and Laurey Carpenter ("Defendants"). This matter is before the court on motion of Defendants for summary judgment, filed on January 16, 2015. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on March 18, 2015. ECF No. 49. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2012)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for a Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on June 17, 2015, recommending that Defendants be granted summary judgment. ECF No. 70. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on July 6, 2015. ECF No. 73. Defendant replied to Plaintiff's objections on March 30, 2015. ECF No. 53.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976)
. The court is charged with making a de novo review of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is made. Id. The district court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47–48 (4th Cir.1982). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff's objections do not direct the court to a specific error in the Magistrate
. Nevertheless, the court has conducted a de novo review of the issues in this case and concludes that the Magistrate Judge has properly applied the applicable law. The Magistrate Judge properly found that Plaintiff did not contest the entry of summary judgment as to her claims for sex discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, and violation of the South Carolina Whistleblower Act. ECF No. 49 at 7–9. In regard to Plaintiff's two remaining state law claims, the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that this Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction in the interest of fairness and convenience.
The first remaining state law claim is defamation. The Magistrate Judge properly found that Plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on this claim. Plaintiff did not contest summary judgment as to the specific allegations of defamation indicated in her deposition and addressed by Defendants but instead submitted a vague summary of additional allegations of defamation. ECF No. 49 at 10–11. This summary, having no citations to the record, is insufficient to establish the elements of defamation.
The second remaining state law claim is civil conspiracy. The Magistrate Judge properly found that Plaintiff failed to show that the individual Defendants committed acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.2 Plaintiff only offers evidence of actions taken by the individuals Defendants in the course of their employment. Id. at 16. These actions do not constitute the requisite "additional acts in furtherance of a conspiracy." See Hackworth v. Greywood at Hammett, LLC, 385 S.C. 110, 682 S.E.2d 871, 874 (2009)
.
Based upon the foregoing, the court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33).
Report and Recommendation
KAYMANI D. WEST
, United States Magistrate Judge.
28 U.S.C. § 1367
. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 33.
Having considered the Motion; Plaintiff's Response, ECF No. 49; Defendants' Reply, ECF No. 53; and applicable law, the undersigned recommends that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and this matter be ended.
In response to Defendants' Motion, Plaintiff, through counsel, does not contest entry of summary judgment as to her claims for sex discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, or violation of South Carolina's Whistleblower Law. See Pl.'s Resp. 7 (Title VII sex discrimination), 7–8 (retaliation), 8 (age discrimination), 9 (S.C. Whistleblower Act). Accordingly, it is recommended that summary judgment be granted as to Plaintiff's claims of sex discrimination, retaliation, age discrimination, and Violation of South Carolina Whistleblower Act (Causes of Action One through Four). Diversity jurisdiction does not exist. See 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–7 (). If this portion of the Report and Recommendation is adopted, all claims within the court's original jurisdiction will be ended.
The court must then determine whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
. "The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if- ... (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As noted by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, "Once a district court has dismissed the federal claims in an action, it maintains ‘wide discretion’ to dismiss the supplemental state law claims over which it properly has supplemental jurisdiction." Yashenko v. Harrah's N.C. Casino Co., LLC, 446 F.3d 541, 553 n. 4 (4th Cir.2006) (citing Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 353–54, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988) ). In exercising this discretion, a district court must consider "convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and considerations of judicial economy." Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir.1995) (citing Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614 ). In the event a court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the "period of limitations" for remaining claims "shall be tolled while the claim is pending [in federal court] and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).
Plaintiff substantively responds to Defendants' summary-judgment arguments regarding her claims of defamation (against Wateree) and civil conspiracy (against the Individual Defendants). Id. at 9–17. She then "respectfully requests" that, "[a]ssuming the Court agrees with the arguments set forth by the Defendants in regards to Plaintiff's federal claims," the court decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims of defamation and civil conspiracy and that they be "transferred to South Carolina State Court, Court of Common Pleas, for final resolution." Id. at 18. Plaintiff submits that there is an interest in having the state-law claims adjudicated in state court. Id. at 19.
In reply, Defendants disagree. Defs.' Reply 4–6. Defendants correctly note that, as this matter was not filed in state court initially, the matter could not be remanded (or "transferred") to state court. They also submit that factors informing the decision regarding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction weigh in favor of this matter proceeding in this court. Id. Defendants note that Plaintiff chose the federal forum when she filed her employment case. Further, Defendants submit that the "substantial resources" they have devoted to litigating this case in federal court—including completed documentary discovery, depositions, and multiple subpoenas—would need to be duplicated in state court, at additional costs to the litigants. Id. at 4–5. Defendants further submit that "[j]udicial economy would not be served if Plaintiff were to begin anew in state court." Id. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hosey v. Enter. Leasing Company-Southeast, LLC
...Although Rule 56 does not impose upon this court the duty to comb the record for evidence to support a party's claims, see Brailsford, 135 F.Supp.3d at 448, nevertheless, the undersigned reviewed the record to establish an understanding of the basis for Plaintiff's allegations. In the porti......
-
Garcia v. Brown
...Here, there is not enough information in the record to support Plaintiff's defamation claim. See, e.g., Brailsford v. Wateree Cmty. Action, Inc., 135 F. Supp. 3d 433, 448 (D.S.C. 2015) (granting summary judgment on defamation claim where plaintiff presented "conclusory and vague," did not "......
- Russell v. McGrath
-
Davis v. New Penn Financial LLC
... ... “Davis”) filed this action against her former ... employer, Defendant ... § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule ... 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for a report ... See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc". , 477 U.S. 242, ... 255 (1986). However, \xE2\x80" ... knowledge. See Latif v. The Cmty. Coll. of ... Baltimore , 354 Fed.Appx ... See, e.g., ... Brailsford v. Wateree Cmty. Action, Inc. , 135 F.Supp.3d ... ...