Daniels v. Daniels

Filing 34

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court ACCEPTS the Report 29 . Therefore, for reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 12/7/2011. (mcot, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Jimmie Craig Daniels, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Mandy Michelle Beasley Daniels, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No.: 4:10-cv-1692-TLW-SVH ORDER The plaintiff, Jimmie Craig Daniels (“plaintiff”), brought this civil action, pro se, on June 30, 2010. (Doc. # 1). This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. # 29). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss this matter without issuance and service of process. (Doc. # 29). The plaintiff filed objections to the Report.1 (Doc. # 31). 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 1 In his objections (Doc. # 31), the plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists over his claims because the defendant allegedly violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was not met at the commencement of this action. 1 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. # 29). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge December 7, 2011 Florence, South Carolina 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?