Stritzinger v. Livingston ( 2020 )

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 , 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 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 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. , 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of the standard set forth in , the Court has reviewed, , 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 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.