Lewis v. Lewis

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 10/31/2012. (ydav, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Kimberly I. Lewis,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Joesph E. Lewis; Paul S. Simon,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:12-cv-02072-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Kimberly I. Lewis (“plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initially filed this action on July
24, 2012, and filed an Amended Complaint on August 10, 2012. (Docs. #1, 6). This civil action is
against two individuals, Joesph E. Lewis and Paul S. Simon.

(Doc. #6).

A Report and

Recommendation (“the Report”) was filed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case
had previously been assigned,1 on September 12, 2012. (Doc. #12). Plaintiff filed Objections to the
Report on October 19, 2012. (Doc. #18).
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report filed by Judge Gossett.
(Doc. #12). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends that the above-captioned case be
summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for lack of
federal subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. #12).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, rejected, or modify, in

1

Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United States Code § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the
Magistrate Judge is authorized to review pretrial matters and submit findings and recommendations to this Court.

whole or in part, the recommendations contained in the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the
magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The
Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, this Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
(Doc. #12) and the objections (Doc. #18). After careful review of the Report and objections
thereto, this Court ACCEPTS the Report (Doc. #12). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by
the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is
ACCEPTED (Doc. #12) and the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. #6) in the abovecaptioned case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
October 31, 2012
Florence, South Carolina