Stritzinger v. Livingston et al

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing the complaint without prejudice, for 9 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on April 15, 2020. (kbos)

3:18-cv-00763-TLW

Date Filed 04/15/20

Entry Number 14

Page 1 of 2

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

Case No. 3:18-cv-00763-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.

Order

Lora Livingston, et al.,
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff John S. Stritzinger, proceeding pro se, filed this “Petition for
Administrative Orders on Submission,” in which he asks the Court to reassign a case
that he has filed in Texas state court. ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) filed by the magistrate
judge to whom this case was assigned. ECF No. 9.
In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that this case be summarily
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After the magistrate judge filed the
Report, Plaintiff filed objections. ECF No. 13. This matter is now ripe for decision.
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,
1

3:18-cv-00763-TLW

Date Filed 04/15/20

Entry Number 14

Page 2 of 2

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. After careful review of the Report and the objections,
for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 9, is ACCEPTED.
Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 13, are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No.
1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1

s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
April 15, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

1

In light of this ruling, the Court terminates as MOOT the remaining outstanding
motion in this case, ECF No. 7.
2