Assa'ad-Faltas v. City of Columbia et al
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, and denying as moot 15 Motion to Certify Question filed by Marie Assa'ad-Faltas, 10 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on September 25, 2014. (kbos)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH,
Case No. 3:14-cv-298-TLW
City of Columbia, SC; The City’s Police
Department; Jean H. Toal; Dana Elizabeth
Davis Turner; Pamela Elaine Jacobs Hawkins;
Daniel E. Rickenmann; David A. Fernandez;
Robert G. Cooper; CPD Officer T.R. Hampe;
Roslyn W. Frierson, Director of South
Carolina’s Office of Court Administration;
Reuben Santiago, Interim CPD Chief; Teresa
Wislon,1 Manager of the City; Alan Wilson,
Attorney General of South Carolina, solely
officially for injunctive and declaratory relief;
and other presently-unknown persons and
entities who acted to injure Plaintiff from 9
December 2010 to 4 February 2011, and to
also injure her on 8 April 2013,
Plaintiff Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her constitutional rights. The matter now comes before
the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed on February 27, 2014 by
Magistrate Judge Hodges, to whom this case was assigned. (Doc. #10.) In the R&R, the
magistrate judge recommends that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on March 17, 2014. (Doc.
#12.) This matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the R&R, 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. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the R&R
and the objections. After careful review of the R&R and the objections, for the reasons stated by
the magistrate judge, the R&R is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a motion to certify a question to the South Carolina
Supreme Court. (Doc. #15.) In light of the Court’s ruling above, this motion is DENIED AS
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
September 25, 2014
Columbia, 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?