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)

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