Varner v. Serco, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-2340-DCN

Marcius Varner, Plaintiff, v. SERCO, Inc., Defendant.

Case No. 2:16-cv-2340-DCN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

March 12, 2018

ORDER

This matter is before the court on United States Magistrate Judge Marchant Bristow's report and recommendation ("R&R"), ECF No. 29, that the court grant in part and deny in part defendant SERCO, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 26, granting it with respect to plaintiff Marcius Varner's first and second causes of action and denying it as to his third cause of action. The R&R further recommends that the court: (1) dismiss the first and second causes of action with prejudice; and (2) decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third cause of action and dismiss it without prejudice in order to allow plaintiff to pursue this claim in state court.

For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts in part and rejects in part the R&R: (1) adopting its recommendation to grant summary judgment on the first and second causes of action and dismiss those claims with prejudice; (2) adopting its recommendation to deny summary judgment on the third cause of action; but (3) rejecting its recommendation to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss without prejudice the third cause of action. Accordingly, the court grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 26, dismissing the first and second causes of action with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

This case arises out of the alleged discrimination and retaliation against plaintiff while employed as a warehouse associate by defendant. R&R 2. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant: (1) discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, ("ADA"); (2) violated his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, ("FMLA"); and (3) retaliated against him for filing a workers' compensation claim in violation of S.C. Code § 42-1-80. Compl. ¶¶ 43-65. The R&R details the salient facts of the case, and because it is unnecessary to recapitulate the pleadings and exhibits constituting the factual record, this order dispenses with a recitation thereof. Like the R&R, the court construes the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in considering the motion for summary judgment.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff initiated this action in federal court on June 29, 2016. ECF No. 1. Per the court's scheduling order, the deadline for discovery expired on April 7, 2017. ECF No. 15. On July 14, 2017, defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment as to all causes of action. On August 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a response in opposition, ECF No. 27, and on August 18, 2017, defendant filed a reply thereto, ECF No. 28.

On October 27, 2017, the magistrate judge issued the R&R, recommending that the court grant in part and deny in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, granting it as to the federal causes of action, denying it as to the state law cause of action, but further recommending refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the latter.The R&R specifically advised the parties of the procedure for filing objections thereto and the consequences if they failed to do so. R&R 31-32. On November 22, 2017, after receiving an extension, both parties timely filed objections to the R&R, ECF Nos. 32, 33, and on December 6, 2017, both parties filed replies, ECF Nos. 34, 35. The matter is now ripe for the court's review.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. R&R

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The recommendation carries no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Id. at 270-71. The court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge . . . or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the R&R to which a specific objection is made. Id. However, in the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the court reviews the R&R only for clear error. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Furthermore, "[a] party's general objections are not sufficient to challenge a magistrate judge's findings." Greene v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs., Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 483, 488 (D.S.C. 2006) (citation omitted). When a party's objections are directed to strictly legal issues "and no factual issues are challenged, de novo review of the record may be dispensed with." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). Analogously, de novo review is unnecessary when a party makes general and conclusory objections withoutdirecting a court's attention to a specific error in the magistrate judge's proposed findings. Id. Finally, the failure to file specific, written objections to the R&R results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the district court based upon such recommendation. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).

B. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence presented could lead a reasonable fact finder to return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The court must view all facts and draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence before it in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. The court must not resolve disputed facts, weigh the evidence, Russell v. Microdyne Corp., 65 F.3d 1229, 1239 (4th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted), or make determinations of credibility. Sosebee v. Murphy, 797 F.2d 179, 182 (4th Cir. 1986). Inferences that are "drawn from the underlying facts . . . must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam).

The party moving for summary judgment "bears the initial burden of pointing to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Temkin v. Frederick Cty. Comm'rs, 945 F.2d 716, 718 (4th Cir. 1991) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). If the movant carries this burden, then the burden "shifts to the non-moving party to come forward with facts sufficient to create a triable issue of fact." Id. at 718-19 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48). The nonmoving party is required to submit evidence ofspecific facts by way of affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, or admissions to demonstrate the existence of a genuine and material factual issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. However, "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48. Furthermore, "[a] mere scintilla of evidence supporting the [non-moving party's] case is insufficient" to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th Cir. 1994); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256 (noting that a non-moving party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial").

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff objects to the R&R's: (1) reliance on the declarations of several of defendant's employees; and (2) recommended dismissal of his ADA claim. Pl.'s Objs. 1-8. Defendant objects to the R&R's recommendation that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law retaliation claim. Def.'s Objs. 1. The court examines these objections in turn.

A. Plaintiff's Objections

1. Objection to Reliance on Declarations

First, plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge improperly relied on the declarations of defendant's corporate claims manager Francisco Magana ("Magana"), human resources manager Jena Hart ("Hart"), and program manager Al Rauchut ("Rauchut") because: (1) the declarations were not notarized; (2) the declarations werecreated after discovery closed; (3) two declarations were submitted by individuals not listed as witnesses Pl.'s Objs. 1-2.

At the outset, the court notes that plaintiff failed to raise these issues with the declarations before the magistrate judge, raising it for the first time in his objections. The court "is not obligated to consider new arguments raised by a party for the first time in objections" because such allowance frustrates the purpose of the Magistrate's Act and wastes judicial resources. Nelson v. Town of Mt. Pleasant Police Dep't, No. 2:14-cv-4247-DCN, 2016 WL 5110171 at *3 (Sept. 21, 2016 D.S.C.) (citations omitted). "While the court has the power to address such arguments, that power lies within the court's sound discretion." Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, the court may dispense with an analysis of this objection, which is appropriate here because plaintiff provides no valid reason for failing to raise this issue to the magistrate judge other than that he "assumed" the magistrate judge would disregard them. Pl.'s Objs. 1. Accordingly, the court disregards this objection and affirms the R&R's reliance on the declarations.

However, assuming arguendo that plaintiff raised this issue to the magistrate judge, the court would nevertheless find that plaintiff's objection to the declarations lacks merit. First, for its contention that a declaration must be notarized, plaintiff claims that unsworn declarations cannot be...