Stritzinger v. Bank of America et al

Filing 38

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, accepting the Report and Recommendation and dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, for 31 Report and Recommendation,, Moti ons denied: 34 MOTION to Amend/Correct 15 Amended Complaint, MOTION to Seal filed by John S Stritzinger, 35 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by John S Stritzinger, 31 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 15 Amended Complaint, filed by John S Stritzinger. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on December 3, 2015. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Case No. 3:15-cv-1469-TLW

John S. Stritzinger,
PLAINTIFF
v.

Order

Bank of America; Vernon MC Wright;
Charles Holliday; Brian Moynihan; United
States of America; and Walter Massey,
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff John S. Stritzinger, proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging a violation of his civil rights. (ECF Nos. 1 & 15.) The matter now comes before the Court
for review of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed on June 30, 2015 by Magistrate Judge
Gossett, to whom this case was assigned. (ECF No. 31.) In the R&R, the magistrate judge
recommends that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be summarily dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance of service of process. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on July
30, 2015. (ECF Nos. 33 & 34.) 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
1

omitted).
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
Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of
process.
Additionally, after the R&R was filed, Plaintiff filed multiple documents that purport to be
motions for leave to add additional parties and motions to seal (ECF Nos. 33 & 34), and
additionally filed a document captioned “Emergency Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel” (ECF No.
35). Having carefully considered these filings, these motions are DENIED as being without
sufficient legal merit. See United States v. Patel, 879 F.2d 292, 295 (7th Cir. 1989) (“When issues
patently lack merit, the reviewing court is not obliged to devote scarce judicial resources to a
written discussion of them.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
December 3, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

2