Green v. Garland

• Decision Date: 27 July 2022
• Docket Number: 4:21-cv-2514-SAL
• Parties: Juanita Green, Plaintiff, v. Merrick B. Garland and Bureau of Prisons, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

Juanita Green, Plaintiff,
v.
Merrick B. Garland and Bureau of Prisons, Defendants.

No. 4:21-cv-2514-SAL

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

July 27, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

Sherri A. Lydon, United States District Judge

This matter is before the court for review of the May 3, 2022 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West (the “Report”), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 14]. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's ADA cause of action and denying the Motion as to all other claims. Id. For the reasons outlined herein, the court adopts the Report in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Juanita Green (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against her former employer, Bureau of Prisons, LLC (“BOP” or “Defendant”)^[1], alleging discrimination and reprisal in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. [ECF No. 1, Compl.] Plaintiff has filed three separate Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaints

1

related to her employment with Defendant. Only her third-attempted EEO complaint and associated case concerning BOP claim 2019-0882 are at issue in this action.^[2] On May 11, 2021, the Department of Justice issued a final decision dismissing Plaintiff's third EEO complaint as untimely. On September 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this court and initiated the instant action. [ECF No. 1, Compl.]

On October 12, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. [ECF No. 8.] On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff submitted her response in opposition. [ECF No. 9.] On May 3, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report that is the subject of this Order. [ECF No. 14.] Defendant filed objections on May 17, 2022, and Plaintiff replied two weeks later. [ECF Nos. 15, 16.] Accordingly, the matter is ripe for this court's review.

As an initial matter, the court notes that the Report sets forth, in great detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant object to the Report's recitation of the facts, and accordingly this court incorporates those facts herein without another recitation.

REVIEW OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT

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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the

2

Report and 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) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

“An objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues- factual and legal-that are at the heart of the parties' dispute.'” Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, No. 0:15-cv-04009, 2017 WL 6345402, at *5 n.6 (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2017) (citing One Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996)). A specific objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report thus requires more than a reassertion of arguments from the pleading or a mere citation to legal authorities. See Workman v. Perry, No. 6:17-cv-00765, 2017 WL 4791150, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2017). A specific objection must “direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).

“Generally stated, nonspecific objections have the same effect as would a failure to object.” Staley v. Norton, No. 9:07-0288-PMD, 2007 WL 821181, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2007) (citing Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). The Court reviews portions “not objected to-including those portions to which only ‘general and conclusory' objections have been made-for clear error.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 200; Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47).

DISCUSSION

Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and reprisal should proceed to discovery. See [ECF No. 15 at 1.] In doing so, Defendant reasserts the argument it submitted to

3

the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's claims are: (1) procedurally barred for her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit in this court and (2) subject to dismissal because they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at 1-2. The court notes that a specific objection requires more than a reassertion of arguments. See Workman v. Perry, No. 6:17-cv-00765, 2017 WL 4791150, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2017). Nevertheless, the court...