United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
John S. Stritzinger, Plaintiff,
Upland Police Department; Norwood, Police Department; Enterprise Rental Car; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Dollar Rent A Car, Defendants.
Stritzinger, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.
December 2, 2015, Plaintiff John S. Stritzinger, proceeding
pro se, brought this action against Defendants
Upland Police Department, Norwood, Police Department,
Enterprise Rental Car, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
Dollar Rent A Car. (ECF No. 1). On the same day, Plaintiff
filed a motion construed as a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915. (ECF
No. 3). On January 27, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge
Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2),
(D.S.C.), issued an Order directing Plaintiff, inter
alia, to bring the case into proper form by filing the
necessary service documents, and by either paying the filing
fee or providing sufficient information to make a
determination of indegency. (ECF No. 18 at 2). Subsequently,
Plaintiff filed eight motions. Despite the Court's
warning that failure to comply with the Proper Form Order,
(ECF No. 18), could result in the dismissal of his case,
these filings failed to bring the action into proper form.
April 6, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (the "Report") recommending that
this Court deny Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and dismiss this action without
prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to comply fully
with the Orders of the Court. (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff filed
timely Objections to the Report on April 15, 2016. (ECF No.
matter is now before the Court for review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report. 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 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
Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791
F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).
light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the
Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the
Objections. After an appropriate review, the Report is
ACCEPTED and the Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice and without issuance of service of process for the
reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge.
filing his Objections, Plaintiff has filed several purported
motions in this case. In light of the dismissal of the
Complaint, all remaining pending motions are TERMINATED AS
MOOT. The Court also notes that it has appropriately
considered these filings and finds each to be without
sufficient legal merit. See United States v.
Patel, 879 F.2d 292, 295 (7th Cir. 1989) ("When
issues patently lack merit, the reviewing court is not
obliged to devote scarce judicial resources to a written
discussion of them.").
 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend/Correct
Amended Complaint, Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for
Judgment on Submission, Motion to Waive Rights to District
Court, and Motion for Specific Findings of Facts, (ECF No.
20); a Motion to Transfer Docket Entries from Pennsylvania,
(ECF No. 21); and Motions for Reconsideration re Proper Form
Order and to Appoint Counsel, (ECF No. 29).
 Plaintiff filed a "Motion to
Amend/Correct Amended Complaint and for Damages from Dollar
Rental Car and the State of Maryland, " "Motion to
Amend/Correct Amended Complaint and to Add Party Cincinnati
Bell Telephone, " "Motion to Reopen Cause under
FRCP50, " and a "Motion to Issue Summons."