Filed: Oct. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2019
Summary: Order TERRY L. WOOTEN , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff Kanisha Anne Shani Wall, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging South Carolina state law claims of slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ECF Nos. 1, 53. 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. 58. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss b
Summary: Order TERRY L. WOOTEN , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff Kanisha Anne Shani Wall, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging South Carolina state law claims of slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ECF Nos. 1, 53. 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. 58. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss be..
More
Order
TERRY L. WOOTEN, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Kanisha Anne Shani Wall, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging South Carolina state law claims of slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ECF Nos. 1, 53. 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. 58.
In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted and Plaintiff's motion to amend be denied as futile. After the magistrate judge filed the Report, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Objection to Dismissal" that can only be characterized as a rant against Defendant that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. ECF No. 60. 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 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, ECF No. 58, is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's objections, ECF No. 60, are OVERRULED. Defendant's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 43, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to amend, ECF No. 53, is DENIED. Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
