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

Filing 15

ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 2/27/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION

Marie Assa'ad-Faltas MD MPH,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
State of South Carolina; City of Columbia, )
South Carolina,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 1:13-cv-36-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Marie Assa’ad-Faltas (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1). The matter now comes before
this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on February 7,
2013 by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, (Doc. # 11), to whom this case was previously
assigned. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on February 25, 2013. (Doc. # 13)
In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the case without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process. 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, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court hereby
ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 11). The Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. (Doc. # 13).
The Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____s/Terry L. Wooten____
United States District Judge

February 27, 2013
Florence, South Carolina