Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:13-298-TLW-SVH
02-27-2013
Marie Assa'ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Petitioner, v. The State of South Carolina; and the City of Columbia, SC, Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner, Marie Assa'ad-Faltas, ("Petitioner"), brought this civil action, pro se, for habeas relief on February 1, 2013. (Doc. # 1).
The 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. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Doc. # 9). Petitioner filed an Objection to the Report. (Doc. # 11). In conducting its review, the Court therefore 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 Objection. After careful review of the Report and Objection thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 9). To the extent that Petitioner's Objection can be construed to include a motion for an additional period of time in which to file further objections that motion is denied. This action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability as to the issues raised herein. Petitioner is advised that she may seek a certificate from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
TERRY L. WOOTEN
United States District Judge
February 27, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina