Crawford v. Atkinson et al

Filing 60

ORDER RULING ON 46 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 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 is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 08/02/2022. (apsn)

9:21-cv-02526-TLW

Date Filed 08/02/22

Entry Number 60

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Lawrence L. Crawford,

Case No. 9:21-cv-02526-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.

Order

Officer Ms. Atkinson, et al.,
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Lawrence L. Crawford, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action
making a host of allegations in a 503-page Amended Complaint, naming countless
defendants, including “The United States Congress,” “The (193) Member States of the
United Nations,” “All Sugar Companies,” “All Federal Employees,” “The N.F.L.,” and
even “The Two Mailroom Ladies at Lee C.I.” ECF No. 59 at 5–11. 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. 46.
In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the Amended Complaint
be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. After the
magistrate judge filed the Report, Plaintiff filed a host of variously titled documents.
ECF Nos. 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58. 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
1

9:21-cv-02526-TLW

Date Filed 08/02/22

Entry Number 60

Page 2 of 2

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. 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 is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s
objections are OVERRULED.1 This case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
August 2, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina

The caption of one of his filings includes a “motion for an extension of time to file
objections to the report and recommendation once the magistrate rule on the motion
to transfer jurisdiction to the trustee and motion to motion therefor.” ECF No. 49 at
1. To the extent that filing includes a request for additional time to file objections, the
Court concludes that he has not set forth a legally sufficient basis to warrant
additional time and his request is therefore denied.
1

2