Assa'ad-Faltas v. South Carolina, State of et al
Filing
49
ORDER adopting re 41 Report and Recommendation.; denying 44 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 14 Motion to designate a three-judge panel from outside South Carolina Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 12/7/2012.(ydav, )
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 Replublic of Eygpt (Egypt) and as
founder and first member of Doctors
Against Drunk Drivers (DADD); Orthodox
Christians Against Executions (OCAE);
Sojourners Against Xenophobia (SAX),
Plaintiff,
vs.
State of South Carolina (SC); Nimrata R.
Haley, as SC's Governor; Alan Wilson, as
SC's Attorney General; Glenn McConnel,
as SC's Lieutenant Governor; John
Courson, as President pro tempore of SC's
Senate; SC’s General Assembly; SC’s
Judicial Merit Selection Commission,
JMSC; Jean Toal, as administrative head
of all SC's state courts; Daniel Shearouse,
as Clerk of SC's Supreme Court; Tanya
Gee, as Clerk and Deputy Clerk of SC's
Court of Appeals; V. Claire Allen, as
Clerk and Deputy Clerk of SC's Court of
Appeals; Mark Keel, as Chief of SC's State
Law Enforcement Division (SLED); Leroy
Smith, as Head of SC's Department of
Public Safety; Leon Lott, as Sheriff of
Richland County SC and Warden of the
Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center (ASGDC);
Gafford Thomas Cooper, Jr, as SC's Fifth
Judicial Circuit's Administrative Judge for
General Sessions; Daniel Johnson, as SC's
Fifth Judicial Circuit's Solicitor, Gary
Watts, as Coroner for Richland County SC;
Jeanette McBride, as Richland County's
Clerk of Court; Leslie Coggiola, as SC's
Disciplinary Counsel; Roslynn Frierson, as
Director of SC's Office of Court
Administration; William Nettles, as US
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 3:12-1786-TLW-SVH
Attorney for the District of South Carolina )
(DSC); Steven Benjamin, as Mayor and all )
members of the City of Columbia ("the
)
city") Council; Steve Gantt, manager for the )
City; Dana Turner, falsely bearing a title of )
Chief Administrative Judge of the City's
)
Municipal Court (CMC); Randy Scott,
)
falsely bearing a title of the City's Chief of )
Police; Marion Hanna, falsely bearing the )
title of CMC judge; Ken Gaines, supposed )
attorneys for the City and all of their
)
subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff; )
Robert G. Cooper, supposed attorneys for )
the City and all of their subordinates who )
intend to injure Plaintiff; Dana M. Thye,
)
supposed attorneys for the City and all of )
their subordinates who intend to injure
)
Plaintiff; David A. Fernandez, supposed
)
attorneys for the City and all of their
)
subordinates who intend to injure Plaintiff, )
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )
ORDER
Plaintiff Marie Assa’ad-Faltas (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brings this action seeking “injunctive and qui tam relief.” (Doc. # 1, Doc. # 10). The matter now
comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on
November 14, 2012 by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case was previously
assigned. (Doc. # 41). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on December 3, 2012. (Doc. # 45).
Also before this Court is Plaintiff’s combined motion for extension of time to supplement her
objections to the Report and for leave to file the supplement and all future documents
electronically (Doc. # 44), filed on December 3, 2012.
In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the case without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process, and denying the Plaintiff’s motion to designate a
three-judge panel from outside South Carolina (Doc. # 14). 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. # 41). The Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. (Doc. # 45).
The Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process, and the Plaintiff’s motion to designate a three-judge panel from outside South Carolina
(Doc. # 14) is DENIED.
COMBINED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE
ELECTRONICALLY
Regarding the motion for extension of time, Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure permits the Court to grant, for good cause, a motion for extension of time made before
the original time expires. The Court has carefully reviewed the Plaintiff’s motion for extension
of time (Doc. # 44) and finds no good cause for granting an extension of time. Therefore, the
motion for extension of time is DENIED. Regarding the motion for leave to file electronically,
in light of the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s case, the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file
electronically (Doc. 44) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____s/Terry L. Wooten____
United States District Judge
December 7, 2012
Florence, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?