Corey Glover v. The Boeing Company

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Corey Glover. Case No. 2:25-cv-13215-RMG

Plaintiff, v. ORDER The Boeing Company,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 28), recommending that Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss state law claims of breach of contract and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act be granted in part and denied in part. The parties were advised that they had 14 days to file written objections to the R & R and a failure to timely file objections would result in limited clear error review and waiver of the right to file an appeal from the District Court order. (Id. at 21). Defendant filed no objections to the R & R, and Plaintiff filed a memorandum urging the Court to adopt the R & R as the Order of the Court. (Dkt. No. 29). I. Background Plaintiff, a discharged former employee of Defendant, filed this action asserting claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law claims of breach of contract and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. (Dkt. No. 1). Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss addressed only the state law claims. (Dkt. No. 6). The Magistrate Judge described in detail the nature of Plaintiff’s employment-related claims and recommended, with one exception, that Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 28 at 7-20). 1 The one exception involved Plaintiff’s application for and acceptance of a transfer to a Level 3 Workplace Coach position, which was alleged to have been unilaterally reduced to a Level 2 position with significantly lower pay after Plaintiff accepted the transfer. Under the circumstances alleged in the complaint, the Magistrate Judge found that those allegations stated

plausible claims for breach of contract and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. (Id. at 13-18, 19-20). As previously mentioned, no party filed objections to the R & R. The matter is ripe for review. II. Legal Standard: Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. Where the petitioner fails to timely file any specific objections, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead

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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation and punctuation omitted). III. Discussion The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that the motion to dismiss should be granted for all state law

2 claims except the breach of contract and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act claims related to the Level 3 Workplace Coach Position. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the R&R (Dkt. No. 28) is ADOPTED as the Order of the Court. Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED regarding the Level 3 Workplace Coach Position but

is otherwise granted regarding the state law claims. This Order does not address Plaintiff’s § 1981 claims. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge

June 17, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina