[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-16118

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-04227-RLV

SUNNY O. EKOKOTU, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 15, 2013)

Before BARKETT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-16118 Date Filed: 07/15/2013 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Sunny O. Ekokotu, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment to Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”) in his lawsuit 

alleging national origin discrimination (Counts I and II), retaliation (Count III), 

and retaliatory hostile work environment (Count IV), in violation of Title VII, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), (m), 3(a), as well as state tort law claims for negligent 

retention/supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Counts V and 

VI), in violation of O.C.G.A. § 34-7-20. 

Ekokotu, an African-American of Nigerian descent formerly employed by 

FedEx as a courier in an Atlanta location, asserted that he was discriminated and 

retaliated against, principally by two white managers after “he began [an] 

uncompromising stand against discrimination in the work place.” That purported 

stand included filing earlier lawsuits1 and EEOC charges against FedEx for 

violating anti-discrimination laws. He alleged that company officials 

discriminated or retaliated against him in several ways by: (1) issuing an August 

2009 warning letter; (2) issuing a September 2010 performance reminder; 

(3) rating his work performance poorly from 2009-2011; and (4) seeking to collect 

court-ordered costs associated with his prior litigative efforts through garnishment 

actions. He also alleged that the company acted tortiously, in violation of state 

 1 Ekokotu filed two prior federal lawsuits against FedEx. In each case, the district court 

granted summary judgment to FedEx and company officials, and we affirmed. See Ekokotu v. 

Boyle, 294 F. App’x 523 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished); Ekokotu v. Fed. Express Corp., 408 F. 

App’x 331 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). 

Case: 12-16118 Date Filed: 07/15/2013 Page: 2 of 6 
3

law, by hiring or retaining the two white managers in light of the preceding. The 

district court, adopting a magistrate’s report, disagreed and concluded that FedEx 

was entitled to summary judgment.

Ekokotu now contends that the district court failed to conduct a de novo

review of the magistrate’s dispositive recommendation and erred in granting 

summary judgment to FedEx on his Title VII and Georgia state law claims. For 

ease of reference, we will address each point, in turn.

I.

Ekokotu first contends that the district court erroneously failed to conduct a 

de novo review of the magistrate’s recommendation, in violation of the Federal 

Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a district court 

may designate a magistrate judge to hear and to submit proposed findings and 

recommendations for disposition of any pretrial matter, including a summary 

judgment motion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B). If a party to the proceeding 

timely objects to the magistrate’s report, the district court must conduct a de novo

review of the objected-to findings or recommendations. Id. § 636(b)(1)(C). “As 

the use of the phrase de novo implies, the district court’s consideration of the 

[disputed facts] must be independent and based upon the [evidence] before the 

court.” LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988). Thus, a court 

must review the evidence and, after doing so, may accept, reject, or modify the 

Case: 12-16118 Date Filed: 07/15/2013 Page: 3 of 6 
4

proposed findings or recommendations. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Here, the district court properly conducted a de novo

review, noting that it had “carefully considered the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, including a detailed review of all of [Ekokotu]’s objections,” and

detailed its rejection of several specific objections.

II.

Turning to the merits, Ekokotu first argues that the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment to FedEx on his national origin discrimination claims. 

Here, the district court did not err with respect to Ekokotu’s national origin 

discrimination claims. First, the court correctly held that Ekokotu abandoned the 

claims because he not only failed to argue them in response to FedEx’s motion for 

summary judgment, but he explicitly and unequivocally disavowed them in 

response to FedEx’s motion for summary judgment. See Resolution Trust Corp., 

43 F.3d at 592. Because the court’s alternative reasoning regarding abandonment 

was correct, Ekokotu’s argument regarding the court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 

41 is inconsequential. 

In any case, Ekokotu also failed to produce sufficient evidence to raise an 

inference of national origin discrimination. Here, the only evidence relevant to 

Ekokotu’s national origin discrimination claims consisted of comments by one of 

the white managers that he occasionally had difficulty understanding Ekokotu 

Case: 12-16118 Date Filed: 07/15/2013 Page: 4 of 6 
5

because of his fast speech and accent, as well as the fact that Ekokotu, rather than a 

U.S.-born courier, was disciplined after an incident where packages were left 

behind at a customer location. The manager’s occasional remarks did not betray 

an invidious intent; moreover, evidence showed that Ekokotu, not the U.S.-born 

courier, was disciplined when the packages were abandoned because he, not the 

other courier, had scanned them, and Ekokotu raised no inference to the contrary. 

III.

Ekokotu next contends that the district court erred in granting FedEx’s 

motion for summary judgment on his retaliation claim. The district court did not 

err in granting summary judgment with respect to Ekokotu’s claim of retaliation. 

The record supports the district court’s conclusion that Ekokotu failed to present a 

prima facia case. Moroever, Ekokotu’s effort to rely on a “mixed motives” 

analysis cannot be supported because he failed to show that FedEx was motivated 

at least in part by an impermissible motive.

IV.

Next, Ekokotu argues that the district court erred in granting summary 

judgment to FedEx on his retaliatory harassment claim. We recently recognized a 

cause of action for retaliatory hostile work environment. Gowski v. Peake, 682 

F.3d 1299, 1312 (11th Cir. 2012). However, the district court did not err in 

granting FedEx summary judgment on Ekokotu’s retaliatory harassment claim. 

Case: 12-16118 Date Filed: 07/15/2013 Page: 5 of 6 
6

The record did not evidence retaliatory harassment that a reasonable person would 

find hostile or abusive. 

V.

Finally, Ekokotu argues that the district erred in granting summary judgment 

on his state law negligent retention and supervision claim, although he does not 

contest the court’s award of summary judgment with respect to his state law claim 

for intentional infliction of emotional distress.2 On this record, we find no error in 

the district court’s summary judgment in favor of FedEx on Ekokotu’s negligent 

retention and supervision claim. Because the contested conduct did not amount to 

a substantive violation of Title VII, Ekokotu’s derivative state law claim fails. 

AFFIRMED.

 2 Ekokotu makes no mention of the claim in his initial brief, and while he references the 

claim in his reply brief, he incorrectly contends that the court did not rule on it below. Even 

liberally construed, this reference to the claim for the first time in his reply brief is insufficient to 

properly raise the issue on appeal. See Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294, 1310 n. 17 

(11th Cir. 2012).

Case: 12-16118 Date Filed: 07/15/2013 Page: 6 of 6