Assa'ad-Faltas v. Gingliat Savitz and Bettis Law Firm, The et al

Filing 21

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, for 11 Report and Recommendation, 14 Motion for leave to file electronically is denied as moot, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on November 5, 2014. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, MD MPH,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
The Gingliat Savitz and Bettis Law Firm, )
in its corporate capacity; Stephen Savitz, )
individually; Tiffany Lurke, officially as
)
employee of Palmetto Health Richland
)
Hospital for injunctive relief and
)
individually for damages; Frank Voss, Jr., )
individually for damages; Palmetto Health )
Richland Hospital (“PHRH”), for damages )
and for injunctive relief; and all agents of )
PHRH who injured Plaintiff on 23 August )
2013 and thereafter, individually and for
)
damages and officially for injunctive relief, )
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 3:14-cv-3431-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
alleging state law claims and claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is now
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United
States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.).

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that this Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. (Doc. #11). Plaintiff filed preliminary objections to the Report on October
10, 2014 (Doc. #15), supplemental objections on October 28, 2014 (Doc. #19), and an additional

attachment to the supplemental objections on October 31, 2014 (Doc. #20). This matter is now
ripe for disposition.
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).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections and supplemental
objections thereto in accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge
accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #11), and Petitioner’s objections
and supplemental objections thereto are OVERRULED (Doc. #15, 19).

For the reasons

articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file electronically is
DENIED as MOOT. (Doc. #14).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge

November 5, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina