Adams v. Tega Cay South Carolina, The City of
Filing
73
ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION approving 69 Report and Recommendation, terminiating as moot 43 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, terminiating as moot 39 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, termin iating as moot 30 Motion for Summary Judgment, terminiating as moot 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's state law claims are remanded to the York County Court of Common Pleas. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 12/22/2014. Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court. (cbru, ) Modified to edit text on 12/22/2014 (cbru, ).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Frank M. Adams,
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
The City of Tega Cay, South Carolina,
)
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 0:13-2925-MGL
ORDER AND OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Frank M. Adams (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against the City of Tega
Cay, South Carolina (“Defendant”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality
of regulations relating to political signs contained in Defendant’s zoning ordinance. The parties
filed cross motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 30 & 44.) Plaintiff also filed two motions
for judicial notice (ECF Nos. 39 & 43.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for
pretrial handling. On November 13, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that this matter be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No.
69.) Plaintiff filed objections on December 1, 2014 (ECF No. 71) and Defendant filed a reply on
December 18, 2014. (ECF No. 72.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s federal claims be dismissed for lack of
standing and that all pending motions be terminated. (ECF No. 69 at 5.) The Magistrate Judge
further recommends that Plaintiff’s state law claims be remanded. The Magistrate Judge concludes
that Plaintiff fails to satisfy the redressability element of the constitutional standing requirement
because a ruling in Plaintiff’s favor by this Court would not remedy Plaintiff’s stated injury—the
restricted ability to post political signs on his property— because the restrictive covenants controlling
the use of Plaintiff’s property prohibit the posting of signs without prior approval of an Architectural
Review Committee. Plaintiff filed brief objections to the Report and Recommendation simply
restating a previous argument considered by the Magistrate Judge concerning the Architectural
Review Committee’s enforcement practices. (ECF No. 71.) Defendant filed a reply noting that
Plaintiff failed to point to any authority to contradict the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff
lacks standing to maintain the federal claims against Defendant as they have been asserted in his
complaint. (ECF No. 72.)
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation,
the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper. Plaintiff’s objections fail to
cast any doubt on the well-reasoned substantive findings and analysis of the Magistrate Judge. The
Court finds no error and Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Accordingly, the Report and
Recommendation is approved and incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff’s federal claims are
hereby dismissed and all pending motions terminated as moot. Plaintiff’s state law claims are hereby
-2-
remanded to the York County Court of Common Pleas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
December 22, 2014
-3-
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?