Stritzinger et al v. United States Government et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing Greenville Associates and Capital Technology Services as plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process, all remaining pending motions are terminated as moot, for 23 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on August 11, 2016. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
John S. Stritzinger; Greenville Associates;
Capital Technology Services,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Federal Communications Commission;
)
United States Government; U.S. Attorney’s )
Office; Verizon; Cisco Systems,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 3:16-1136-TLW

ORDER
On April 11, 2016, Plaintiff John S. Stritzinger, 1 proceeding pro se, brought this action
against Defendants Federal Communications Commission, United States Government, U.S.
Attorney’s Office, Verizon, and Cisco Systems. (ECF No. 1). On the same day, Plaintiff filed a
motion construed as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(ECF No. 2). On May 6, 2016, 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.), issued
an Order directing Plaintiff, inter alia, to bring the case into proper form by filing the necessary
service documents, and by either paying the filing fee or providing sufficient information to make
a determination of indegency. (ECF No. 8). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed four motions. 2 Despite

1

Plaintiff Stritzinger is a self-represented litigant. Plaintiff Greenville Associates and Plaintiff Capital
Technology Services were named but never appeared in this case.
2
Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Review Medical Findings” (ECF No. 10), “Motion to Amend/Correct
Compliant” (ECF No. 16), “Motion for Permanent Injunction” (ECF No. 17), and “Motion for Electronic
Filing” (ECF No. 18).
1

the Court’s warning that failure to comply with the Proper Form Order, (ECF No. 8), could result
in the dismissal of his case, these filings failed to bring the action into proper form.
On June 13, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the
“Report”) recommending that this Court dismiss this action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s
failure to comply fully with the Orders of the Court. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff filed timely Objections
to the Report on June 30, 2016. (ECF No. 25).
This matter is now before the Court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report. In
reviewing the Report, 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
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the Objections. For the reasons stated in the Report, Plaintiff Greenville Associates and
Plaintiff Capital Technology Services are DISMISSED as plaintiffs in this case. After an
appropriate review, the Report is ACCEPTED and the Plaintiff’s Objections are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of
process for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, and all remaining pending motions are
TERMINATED AS MOOT.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 11, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

3