Assa'ad-Faltas v. Columbia, The City of et al

Filing 37

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 11 Report is ACCEPTED, plaintiff's 19 objections are OVERRULED; and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and withou t issuance and service of process as to all defendants except the City of Columbia. As to defendant City of Columbia, the case is REMANDED back to the magistrate judge for consideration of whether service of process should issue. Additionally, as recommended in the Report, plaintiff's 5 motion for reassignment of this case to a "Judge in Columbia" is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 4/21/2011. (prou, )

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

Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, M.D., M.P.H.,
for herself and for all similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff,
vs.
The City of Columbia, South Carolina;
Members of the City’s Council;
Jeannette McBride, Richland County Clerk of Court;
Dana Davis Turner, Chief Administrator of the City’s
Municipal Court;
Angela Ladsen, Ministerial Recorder for the City;
Sandi Myers, parking officer for the City;
All Parking Officers, past, present and future, for the
City;
Marion Hanna, Judge for Columbia’s Municipal Court;
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr.;
James R. Barber, Jr.;
South Carolina Circuit Judges;
and all other presently unknown persons and entities
necessary for adjudication of this case, all solely in the
official capacities and solely for injunctive relief,

) C.A. No. 3:10-cv-3014-TLW-JRM
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.
)
________________________________________________)

This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, to whom this case had
previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In
his Report, Magistrate Judge McCrorey recommends that the above-captioned case be dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Doc. # 11). The Report further

1

recommends that plaintiff’s motion for reassignment of this case to a “Judge in Columbia” (Doc. #5)
be denied. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 19).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 this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections
thereto. The Court accepts the Report, as outlined herein. The Court does note that the Report does
not specifically address the defendant City of Columbia and the allegations made by plaintiff as to
this defendant. Accordingly, the Court finds it necessary to remand the case back to the magistrate
judge solely for consideration of whether service of process should issue as to this remaining
defendant.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is

1

The Court notes that plaintiff has filed additional motions since the filing of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation: (1) Motion for Equal Access to the Courts
(Doc. # 23); and (3) Motion for Immediate Relief (Doc. # 24). In light of this Court’s acceptance
of the recommendation of the magistrate judge in this case with the exception outlined herein,
and after careful review and consideration, the Court concludes that these motions should be
DENIED.
2

ACCEPTED as outlined herein (Doc. # 11), plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 19);
and the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process as to all defendants except the City of Columbia. As to defendant City of Columbia, the
case is REMANDED back to the magistrate judge for consideration of whether service of process
should issue. Additionally, as recommended in the Report, plaintiff’s motion for reassignment of
this case to a “Judge in Columbia” (Doc. # 5) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

April 21, 2011
Florence, South Carolina

3