Stritzinger v. Zeleniak et al

Filing 20

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, for 11 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on March 29, 2019. (kbos)

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

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Susan Zeleniak, President of Verizon
)
Federal; John Stratton,
)
Pres. Wireless Services,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 3:18-868-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff John S. Stritzinger brought this action, pro se, on March 29, 2018. ECF No. 1.
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(the Report) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was
previously assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.).
ECF No. 11. The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be summarily dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. Id. Petitioner filed Objections to the
Report, ECF Nos. 16, 17, and a supplemental motion to add parties. ECF No. 15. This matter is
now ripe for disposition.
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 carefully reviewed, de novo, the
Report, the Objections, and the relevant filings. As noted in the Report, Plaintiff has not complied
with the Court’s instructions and has not brought this case into proper form. Thus, for the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report, ECF No.
11, is ACCEPTED, and Petitioner’s Objections, ECF Nos. 16, 17, are OVERRULED.
Additionally, the court has considered Plaintiff’s motion to add parties, ECF No. 15, and finds that
motion is hereby MOOT. The complaint, ECF No. 1, is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Terry L. Wooten______
Senior United States District Judge
March 29, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina