Kreis v. Ross et al

Filing 36

ORDER accepting the 30 Report and Recommendation, overruling Plaintiff's 33 Objections, denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, dismissing Plaintiff's action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, and deeming Plaintiff's remaining motions 11 , 18 , 22 , and 26 moot. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L. Wooten on 7/21/2017. (bgoo)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION August B. Kreis, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) David Ross, Head Sol. over all So. Car. ) Sols, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________________ ) C/A No.: 3:17-cv-0344-TLW ORDER Plaintiff August B. Kreis, III, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging violations of his Constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1988. ECF No. 1. He also seeks damages for various state causes of action. Id. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on June 14, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report on June 26, 2017. ECF No. 33. This matter is now ripe for disposition. In conducting its review, 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. Housing Auth. of the 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. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s objections do not state a factual or legal basis upon which the Court should not accept the Report. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Report, ECF No. 30, and Plaintiff’s Objections, ECF No. 33, are hereby OVERRULED. For the reasons stated in the Report, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 16, is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 1 In light of the Court’s dismissal of the case, Plaintiff’s motions, ECF Nos. 11, 18, 22, 26, are deemed MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten____________ Chief United States District Judge July 21, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina As recommended in the Report, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See ECF Nos. 1, 30. 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?