Stritzinger v. Baird et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's additional filings and motions related to this matter are all terminated as MOOT, for 24 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on June 22, 2016. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

John S. Stritzinger,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Barry Baird; Suzanne Baird; KBW;
)
Vernon Wright; David Karpey; Christopher )
Stockley, Bank of America; Michael
)
Grant; Barbara Desoer, Citigroup; and Louis )
Freeh & Associates, Attn: Mr. Freeh
)
(MBNA America Board Member) &
)
Vice Chairman,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 3:15-4951-TLW

ORDER
The Plaintiff, John S. Stritzinger (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action,
originally captioned “Criminal Complaint” (Doc. #1), and subsequently filed a “Motion to Proceed
with Delayed Fees, and Request for Issuance of Process and Conditional Motion to Dismiss if the
Court Refuses” (Doc. #4) seeking to have criminal charges filed.
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued on April 6, 2016 by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to
whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
73.02(B)(2)(a) (DSC). (Doc. #24). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
above-captioned case be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service
of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (providing that district courts may
dismiss an action if a plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the court) and Chandler Leasing

Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). (Doc. #24). Plaintiff filed an Objection to the
Report on April 15, 2016. (Doc. #27).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting its
review, the Court therefore 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
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objections, and all other relevant
filings in this matter. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report are not specific
and are without merit. Therefore, after careful review of the Report and Objections thereto, it is
hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation be ACCEPTED (Doc. #24). For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process.

2

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s additional filings and motions related to this
matter are all hereby terminated as MOOT; specifically the following: Plaintiff’s “Afadavit of
Petitioner” (sic) and “Motion to Proceed with Delayed Fees, and Request for Issuance of Process
and Conditional Motion to Dismiss if the Court Refuses,” (Doc. #4); “Additional Notices & Order
to Compel the Vice President to Appear,” (Doc. #10); “Motion for Discovery Order,” (Doc. #16);
“Second Supplemental Motion for Discovery Order,” (Doc. #17); “Notice of Past Due Service &
Scheduling Order,” (Doc. #23).
As noted above, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process; in light of that dismissal, all pending motions are hereby terminated as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 22, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

s/ Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge

3