Stritzinger v. State of Delaware et al

Filing 18

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, overruling objections and denying motion to strike. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is moot. Filings ECF No. 15 and 17 are denied, for 11 Report and Re commendation, 17 Motion to Consolidate Cases, Motion to Transfer Case, Motion to Compel, Motion for Reconsideration, filed by John S Stritzinger, 1 Motion to Strike, Motion to Seal Case, filed by John S Stritzinger, 15 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Motion for Hearing filed by John S Stritzinger, 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by John S Stritzinger Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on October 13, 2015. (kbos)

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

Case No. 3:15-mc-286-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Order
State of Delaware; Peter Feliciangel, Assistant
Prosecutor – Medical Issues,
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff John S. Stritzinger, proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
asking the Court to strike proceedings in a Delaware Court and to file this case under seal. (ECF
No. 1.) Plaintiff also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The matter now
comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed on
September 21, 2015 by Magistrate Judge Gossett, to whom this case was assigned. In the R&R,
the magistrate judge denies the motion to seal, recommends that the motion to strike be denied,
and recommends that the request to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied or terminated as
moot. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on September 29, 2015. (ECF No. 16.) 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
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
motion to strike is hereby DENIED and Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is
TERMINATED AS MOOT.
Additionally, after the R&R was filed, Plaintiff filed a document captioned “Notice of
Requested Record and Motion for Order to Release Record; Motion for Emergency Proceedings”
(ECF No. 15), and additionally filed a document captioned “Claim of Federal Immunity under the
U.S. Constitution, Motion to Consolidate, Motion to Transfer, First Amended Answer to U.S.
Magistrate’s Order, Motion to Compel, Motion for the U.S. Magistrate to Reconsider, Brief on the
Merits, and Objections to the Report of U.S. Magistrate” (ECF No. 17). Having carefully
considered these filings, both 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
October 13, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

2