Assa'ad-Faltas v. South Carolina, The State of et al

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation, dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Additionally, the Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/11/2012.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
State of South Carolina; City of
)
Columbia, South Carolina,
)
)
Respondents.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 1:12-2228-TLW-SVH

ORDER

Petitioner, Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, (“Petitioner”), brought this civil action, pro se, for
habeas relief on August 6, 2012. (Doc. # 1).
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Athe Report@) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case had
previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Doc. # 10). Petitioner
filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 13). In conducting its review, the Court therefore 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, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court
ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 10). This action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.
The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Proceedings. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of
appealability as to the issues raised herein. Petitioner is advised that she may seek a certificate
from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Terry L. Wooten____
TERRY L. WOOTEN
United States District Judge

September 11, 2012
Florence, South Carolina