Lashley v. Spartanburg Methodist College

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: February 9, 2022
• Docket: 7:18-cv-02957
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

Summer D. Lashley, Ph.D., ) Case No.: 7:18-cv-2957-JD-KFM ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) OPINION & ORDER Spartanburg Methodist College, W. Scott) Cochran, Mark W. Gibbs, Ph.D., Teresa D.) Ferguson, Jonathan J. Keisler, Ph.D., Angelia) A. Turner, and Clevon A. Boyd, ) ) Defendants. ) )

This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Kevin F. McDonald (“Report and Recommendation”), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Summer D. Lashley, Ph.D., (“Dr. Lashley” or “Plaintiff”), brought this action alleging fifteen causes of action arising from her employment and termination as Director of the Criminal Justice Program and Professor of Criminal Justice at Spartanburg Methodist College’s (“SMC” or “Plaintiff”) during the 2017-2018 school year. (DE 1.) On August 11, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiff's claims arising under Title VII claims for hostile work environment, disparate treatment, gender discrimination, and retaliation are barred because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies (DE 160-1, p.1.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition alleging that despite the “sex”

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). not being checked, the Particulars section of the charge clearly indicates that she exhausted her administrative remedies by raising allegations of sexual harassment, disparate treatment based on sex, and protected activity under Title VII. (DE 164, p. 1.) On November 10, 2021, the Magistrate issued a Report recommending SMC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be denied. (DE 41.) The parties filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of

objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court 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). Upon review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant Spartanburg Methodist College’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Joseph Dawson, III Joseph Dawson, III United States District Judge

Greenville, South Carolina February 9, 2022