Harrison v. Elite Quartz Manufacturing, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN HARRISON, ) Case No.: 4:22-cv-02316-JD-TER ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER AND OPINION ELITE QUARTZ MANUFACTURING, ) LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) )

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III (DE 19), issued under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina. The Report recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (DE 15) and dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to properly and timely serve Defendant or, in the alternative, for failure to plausibly allege a claim for relief.1 A. Background The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which the Court incorporates herein. A brief summary is provided for context. Plaintiff Benjamin Franklin Harrison (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on July 20, 2022, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans

1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., against his former employer, Defendant Elite Quartz Manufacturing, LLC (“Defendant”). (DE 1.) On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service reflecting that the Summons

and Complaint had been mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Defendant’s registered agent, National Registered Agents, Inc., at its Columbia, South Carolina, address. (DE 6.) Attached materials showed that the mailing was delivered and signed for, but Plaintiff did not restrict delivery to the addressee as required under South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(8). Defendant did not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. Plaintiff thereafter requested a Clerk’s Entry of Default, which was entered on August 31,

2022. (DE 10.) On May 19, 2025, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. (DE 15.) To date, Defendant has not made an appearance or filed any response in this matter. B. Report and Recommendation On August 26, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (DE 15) be denied and that this action be dismissed without prejudice. (DE 19.) The Report found that Plaintiff attempted

service of process by certified mail without restricting delivery to the addressee, which does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(8). Because Defendant was not properly served, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, and dismissal is warranted under Rule 4(m). In the alternative, the Report concluded that Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state a plausible claim under the ADA. Specifically, the Report noted that Plaintiff's allegations of temporary symptoms from exposure to workplace fumes were insufficient to establish a disability under the statute and that Plaintiffs request for medical leave did not constitute protected activity to support a retaliation claim. Accordingly, the Report recommended denial of default judgment and dismissal of the case without prejudice. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has lapsed. C. Conclusion The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (DE 19) in full. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Benjamin Franklin Harrison’s Motion for Default Judgment (DE 15) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to properly and timely serve Defendant, or in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina heap September 18, 2025 United Sates District Judge

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from this date under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.