Assa'ad-Faltas v. Columbia SC, City of et al
Filing
15
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, for 10 Report and Recommendation, denying 13 Motion to Reassign, Motion to Amend/Correct filed by Marie Assa'ad-Faltas. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on June 26, 2014. (kbos)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Marie Assa'ad-Faltas MD MPH,
Petitioner,
vs.
City of Columbia, SC; The City’s Police
Department; Sara Heather Savitz Weiss;
Tandy Carter; Debbie C. Jordan; Michael
King; CPD Captain Gregory A. Sharp;
CPD Sargent James Auld; CPD Officer
Brown; CPD Officer Girard;
Richland/Columbia Dispatcher Bruner;
Retired CPD Sargent Joseph Smith; Dana
Elizabeth Davis Turner; Pamela Elaine
Jacobs Hawkins; Attorney David W.
Farrell; Attorney Robert G. Cooper; Dinah
Gail Steele; Larry Wayne Mason; John
Mitchel Jones; Charlene Crouch; Teresa
Felicia Ingram-Jackson; Steele Enterprises;
AAA Investigations; J. Andrew Delaney;
McAngus, Goudelock & Courie; Reuben
Santiago, Interim CPD Chief; Teresa
Wislon; Alan Wilson, Attorney General of
South Carolina,
Defendants.
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 3:13-2715-TLW
ORDER
Plaintiff Marie Assa’ad-Faltas (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
alleges a violation of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. # 1). The matter
now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed
on November 1, 2013 by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, (Doc. # 10), to whom this case was
previously assigned. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on November 18, 2013. (Doc. # 12).
Also on November 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reassign this case and a Motion to
Amend/Correct Complaint. (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. In addition, the Court has reviewed the pending Motion to Reassign and
Motion to Amend. Regarding the Motion to Reassign, the Plaintiff has shown no bias, prejudice,
or relationship that would require recusal by the Magistrate Judge. Regarding the Motion to
Amend, the Court finds that amendment would be futile. See Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 193,
198 n.15 (noting that a motion to amend under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
should be denied when the amendment would be futile). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reassign and Motion to Amend, (Doc. #13), are DENIED. Furthermore, after careful review of
the Report and objections thereto, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 10). The
Plaintiff’s objections, (Doc. #12), are OVERRULED. The Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED
without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 26, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
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?