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

Filing 52

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 14 Report is ACCEPTED, plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED (Docs. # 16 , # 46 , & # 48 ); and the case is DISMISSED with out prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Court notes that plaintiff has filed additional motions since the filing of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docs. # 27 , # 35 , # 45 , # 47 , & # 51 ). In light of this Court's acceptance of the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in this case, and after careful review and consideration, the Court concludes that these motions should be DENIED.. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 8/2/2011. (prou, )

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

Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, M.D., M.P.H.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
The City of Columbia, South Carolina;
)
Members of the City’s Council;
)
J. Steadly Bogan, “judge” for Columbia’s Municipal
)
Court; solely in their official capacities and solely for
)
injunctive relief;
)
Dana Davis Turner, Chief Administrator of the City’s
)
Municipal Court;
)
Officer Hampe; Officer Kahl; Robert G. “Bob” Cooper;
)
David A Fernandez;
)
Assistant City Attorneys (ACAs) for the City;
)
DeAndrea Gist Benjamin;
)
and all other presently-unknown persons and entities
)
necessary for adjudication of this case in both their
)
official and individual capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________________)

C.A. No.: 3:10-3294-TLW-JRM

ORDER

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. # 14). Plaintiff has filed
objections to the Report. (Docs. # 16, # 46, & # 48).
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
1

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.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is
ACCEPTED (Doc. # 14), plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED (Docs. # 16, # 46, & # 48); and
the above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.1
s/ Terry L. Wooten

IT IS SO ORDERED.

TERRY L. WOOTEN
August 2, 2011

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Florence, SC

1

The Court notes that plaintiff has filed additional motions since the filing of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Docs. # 27, # 35, # 45, # 47 & # 51). In light
of this Court’s acceptance of the recommendation of the magistrate judge in this case, and after
careful review and consideration, the Court concludes that these motions should be DENIED.
2