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

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court hereby accepts the 14 Report. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for lea ve to file all future documents with this Court electronically is denied. (Doc. 16 ) To the extent that the Plaintiff has sought time beyond today's date to supplement her objections those motions are likewise hereby denied. (Docs. 16 and 19 ) Additionally, all other relief requested in Plaintiff's March 14, 2012 motion is denied. (Doc. 19 ) Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/22/2012. (hcic, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Marie Assa’ad Faltas, MD, MPH, for herself )
and qui tam and Ex Rel the Government of )
the Arab Republic of Egypt and qui tam the )
United States of America,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
State of South Carolina (SC), et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 3:11-3077-TLW-SVH

ORDER
On November 10, 2011, the Plaintiff, Marie Assa’ad Faltas (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. # 1).
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the 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 Plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). (Doc. # 14). The Plaintiff filed objections to the Report
on February 13, 2012. (Doc. # 17). On that same date, Plaintiff moved this Court for an
additional thirty (30) days in which to supplement her objections and for the ongoing right to file
all future documents electronically. (Doc. # 16). The thirty day time period requested has
passed and the Court has received no supplementary objections. On March 14, 2012, Plaintiff
filed additional “Motions” in which she requested yet another thirty (30) day period to
supplement her objections as well as other relief. (Doc. # 19). The Court has reviewed all of
these filings. These matters are now ripe for resolution.

In conducting its 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. # 14). The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file all
future documents with this Court electronically is DENIED. (Doc. # 16). To the extent that
Plaintiff has sought time beyond today’s date to supplement her objections those motions are
likewise hereby DENIED. (Docs. # 16 and # 19). Additionally, all other relief requested in
Plaintiff’s March 14, 2012 motion is DENIED. (Doc. # 19).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 22, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

__s/Terry L. Wooten______
United States District Judge