Stritzinger v. Moynihan et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, for 40 Report and Recommendation, Motion denied: 44 MOTION f or Permanent Injunction filed by John S Stritzinger, Motions terminated as moot: 24 MOTION to Amend/Correct 14 Amended Complaint, filed by John S Stritzinger, 39 MOTION for Service and for Scheduling Orders re 1 Complaint, MOTION to Take Deposition from Massey; Holliday; Lewis; Stritzinger; Moynihan filed by John S Stritzinger, 33 MOTION for issuance of Subpoena filed by John S Stritzinger, 36 MOTION for Discovery filed by John S Stritzinger, 30 MOTION for Discovery filed by John S Stritzinger, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on May 27, 2016. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
John S. Stritzinger,

Case No. 3:15-cv-4447-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Brian Moynihan, Bank of America; Kathryn
Ruemeller, Whitehouse; Lowell McAdam,
Verizon; Katherine Wright; United States
Attorney - SC; US Supreme Court Clerk;
Supply Chain Partners,

ORDER

DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff John S. Stritzinger, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging a contract dispute.
ECF Nos. 1 & 14. The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (R&R) filed on April 5, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Gossett, to whom this case
was assigned. ECF No. 40. 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, and she recommends terminating as moot several other motions filed, ECF Nos.
24, 30, 33, 36, and 39. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on April 12, 2016, and supplemental
objections on April 15, 2016. ECF Nos. 43 & 45. 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
1

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
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the R&R and
Plaintiff’s objections. After an appropriate review, the R&R is ACCEPTED and Plaintiff’s
objections are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice and without issuance of service of process, and ECF Nos. 24, 30, 33, 36, and 39 are
TERMINATED for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.
Additionally, the Court has appropriately considered Plaintiff’s Motion for a Permanent
Injunction, ECF No. 44, which was filed after the R&R was issued. The Court finds the motion
to be without sufficient legal merit and, accordingly, the Motion for a Permanent Injunction is
DENIED. 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
Chief United States District Judge
May 27, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2