Reaves et al v. Mullins, City of et al

Filing 152

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court ACCEPTS the Report 144 . However, the case remains open pending the resolution of the Marion Defendants Motion for Sanctions 140 for the failure of Plaintiffs to appear at their properly notif ied depositions. Because of this Courts acceptance of the Report, the following pending motions are MOOT: Motion to Dispense with Mediation 102 , Motion for Hearing 114 , Motion to Amend/Correct Motion for Hearing 116 , Motion to Bifurcate 129 , Motion to Name Lead Counsel 130 , and Motion for Hearing 135 . Additionally, Plaintiffs Motion to Strike 146 the Magistrate Judges previous order denying Plaintiffs Motion to Strike is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/8/2010. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Reverend Franklin C. Reaves, Ph.D., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) City of Mullins, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________ )

Civil Action No.:4:07-1487-TLW-TER

ORDER
Plaintiff Rev. Franklin C. Reaves, et al ("plaintiffs") brought this civil action, pro se, on May 25, 2007. (Doc. # 1). This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant the Marion Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, grant the Mullins Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and deny Plaintiffs' Motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 144). The plaintiffs filed objections to the report. (Doc. # 147). In conducting this 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. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 144). However, the case remains open pending the resolution of the Marion Defendants' Motion for Sanctions for the failure of Plaintiffs to appear at their properly notified depositions. (Doc. # 140). Because of this Court's acceptance of the Report, the following pending motions are MOOT: Motion to Dispense with Mediation (Doc. # 102), Motion for Hearing (Doc. # 114), Motion to Amend/Correct Motion for Hearing (Doc. # 116), Motion to Bifurcate (Doc. # 129), Motion to Name Lead Counsel (Doc. # 130), and Motion for Hearing (Doc. # 135). Additionally, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Magistrate Judge's previous order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten_____ United States District Judge March 8, 2010 Florence, South Carolina