United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Newport News Division
Rebecca Beach Smith Chief Judge
matter comes before the court on the Defendant's,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation ("CWF"), Motion
for Summary Judgment and corresponding Memorandum in Support,
filed on January 19, 2018. ECF Nos. 19, 20. On February 2,
2018, the Plaintiff, J.D., filed a Response in Opposition.
ECF No. 27. On February 8, 2018, the Defendant filed a
Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No.
31. On February 9, 2018, the matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72 (b), to conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, if necessary, and to submit to the
undersigned district judge proposed findings of fact, if
applicable, and recommendations for the disposition of the
Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 32.
United States Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations ("R&R") was filed on March 27,
2018. ECF No. 66.The Magistrate Judge first found that there
is a genuine dispute of material fact with regard to whether
J.D. suffers from a disability under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the ADA Amendments
Act ("ADAAA"). See R&R at
12-21. Second, the Magistrate Judge determined
that a reasonable juror could not find that J.D.'s
requested modification-to bring outside food into Colonial
Williamsburg's Shields Tavern, without prior notice to
CWF and without inquiring as to whether CWF could safely
provide J.D. with a gluten-free meal-was not necessary for
J.D. to fully enjoy the goods and services offered by Shields
Tavern. See id. at 5-6, 22-33. Because the Defendant
would be entitled to summary judgment on this basis, the
Magistrate Judge did not reach the issues of whether
J.D.'s proposed modification was reasonable, or whether
it would have fundamentally altered the Defendant's
business. See id. at 33.
of the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, the parties were
advised of their right to file written objections to the
findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge
within fourteen (14) days from the date of the mailing of the
R&R to the objecting party. Id. On April 10,
2018, the Plaintiff filed Objections to the R&R, with
exhibits. ECF Nos. 68, 69. The Defendant also filed
Objections to the R&R on April 10, 2018, with exhibits.
ECF No. 71.
Plaintiff first objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding
that J.D.'s proposed modification, bringing in outside
food to Shields Tavern to eat, was not necessary.
See PI. Objs. at 20-25. Second, the Plaintiff
objects to the Magistrate Judge allegedly "drawing
factual inferences in favor of the Defendant, the moving
party." Id. at 25-28. Lastly, the Plaintiff
objects by arguing that J.D.'s proposed modification was
reasonable. See id. at 28-29. On April 24,
2018, the Defendant filed a Response to the Plaintiff's
Objections, with exhibits. ECF No. 75.
Defendant objected to the Magistrate Judge's finding that
a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether J.D.
is a person with a disability according to the ADA and the
ADAAA. Def. Objs. at 3-9. On April 24, 2018, the Plaintiff
filed a Response in Opposition to the Defendant's
Objections, with exhibits. ECF Nos. 72, 73.
court, having examined the Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's R&R, and having made de novo
findings with respect thereto, hereby
OVERRULES the Plaintiff's Objections and
OVERRULES the Defendant's Objections.
The court ADOPTS AND APPROVES IN FULL the
Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned R&R,
including all findings and recommendations regarding the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED with respect to Counts One through
Three of the Complaint, and the Clerk shall enter judgment in
favor of the Defendant and close the case on this court's
docket. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy
of this Final Order to counsel for all parties.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Portions of the Defendant's
Memorandum in Support, and the Plaintiff's Response in
Opposition were filed under seal, in order to protect the
confidentiality of the Plaintiff s medical records.
See Sealed Mem. Supp., ECF No. 23; Sealed
Attachs./Exs., ECF Nos. 28, 29.
 A sealed, unredacted version of the
R&R was also filed. ECF No. 67.
 This case was brought pursuant to
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794;
Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182-89; and
the Virginia Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, Va.
Code Ann. § 51.5. See R&R at 10. Each of
these statutes can be analyzed together, so the R&R only
refers to Title III of the ADA in addressing the
Plaintiff's claims. See id. at 10-12.
 One of the Magistrate Judge's
alleged errors, in drawing factual inferences in favor of
CWF, was his finding that CWF has a policy of not allowing
outside food into Shields Tavern. See PI. Objs. at
25. The Plaintiff states that this policy "is so riddled
with holes as to be no policy at all." Id. at
26. The Plaintiff lists the exceptions to the CWF policy that
are addressed in the R&R, see id. (listing cake,
wine, children's snacks, and one instance of a ...