Waiters v. Science Applications International Corporation

Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit South Carolina District Court Waiters v. Science Applications International Corporation

Waiters v. Science Applications International Corporation

Plaintiff:	Clifton J Waiters
Defendant:	Science Applications International Corporation
Case Number:	2:2017cv03227
Filed:	November 30, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office:	Charleston Office
County:	Charleston
Presiding Judge:	Richard M Gergel
Presiding Judge:	Bristow Marchant
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 23, 2022	Filing 168 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 157 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, and SAIC's motion for summary judgment 143 is GRANTED. There being no surviving claims, this action is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/23/2022. (adic, ) Modified to edit docket text on 3/23/2022 (adic, ).
September 18, 2019	Filing 77 OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON 63 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and 52 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Science Applications International Corporation: The Court ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Jud ge. Defendant SAICs objections are OVERRULED, and the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1981 failure to promote claim, and Title VII and § 1981 retaliation claim. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/18/2019. (vdru, )

Date Filed

Document Text

March 23, 2022

Filing 168 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 157 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, and SAIC's motion for summary judgment 143 is GRANTED. There being no surviving claims, this action is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/23/2022. (adic, ) Modified to edit docket text on 3/23/2022 (adic, ).

September 18, 2019

Filing 77 OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON 63 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and 52 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Science Applications International Corporation: The Court ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Jud ge. Defendant SAICs objections are OVERRULED, and the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1981 failure to promote claim, and Title VII and § 1981 retaliation claim. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/18/2019. (vdru, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Waiters v. Science Applications International Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Clifton J Waiters
Represented By:	Jarrel L Wigger
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Science Applications International Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?