Felder-Lucas v. Hunter et al

Filing 16

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing the petition and finding motion to stay moot, for 12 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on August 15, 2017. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Alice Felder-Lucas,
Petitioner,
v.
Dave Hunter, C.E.O., in his personal capacity,
against his bond; Irene Dorner, C.E.O., in her
personal capacity, against her bond; County
Assessor Elizabeth M. McDonald; Jeanette
McBride, County Clerk of Court; Comptroller John
C. Dugan, Administrator of National Bank; Michael
S. Piwowar, Security Exchange Commissioner;
Secretary of State Mark Hammond; James Ransom,
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.; Century 21;
Brock & Scott Suzanne Brown; Rogers, Townsend
& Thomas Synergy Business Park; and 20 John and
Jane Does,
Respondents.
_____________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:17-mc-205-TLW

ORDER
Petitioner Alice Felder-Lucas, proceeding pro se, filed this Petition pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 27(a) seeking to perpetuate testimony. ECF No. 1. This matter now comes
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on May 23,
2017, by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case was previously
assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), (D.S.C.). ECF
No. 12. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss the Petition without
prejudice and deem Petitioner’s motion to stay moot. Id. On June 7, 2017, Petitioner filed
objections to the Report. ECF No. 15. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
1

The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation 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 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 concludes that Petitioner’s objections restate that Petitioner seeks
pre-complaint discovery for the purpose of ascertaining facts to draft a complaint rather than
because there is an immediate threat that the information will be lost. See ECF No. 15. The purpose
of perpetuating testimony under Rule 27(a) is not to facilitate pre-complaint discovery, but rather
to prevent information from being lost before litigation begins. See In re Stock, 179 F.R.D. 57, 58
(D. Mass. 1998) (Rule 27 “is not designed to allow pre-complaint discovery.”). Thus, after careful
consideration, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report, ECF No. 12, is
ACCEPTED, and the Petitioner’s Objections, ECF No. 15, are OVERRULED. For the reasons

2

stated in the Report, the Petition, ECF No. 1, is hereby DISMISSED. Additionally, Petitioner’s
motion to stay, ECF No. 3, is deemed MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten____________
Chief United States District Judge
August 15, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

3