Assa'ad-Faltas v. Kittredge

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, Case No. 3:22-cv-00923-TLW PLAINTIFF v. John W. Kittredge, solely officially as Order Acting SC Chief Justice in SC Appellate Case 2021–000815, and solely for declaratory and injunctive relief, DEFENDANT

Plaintiff Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, MD, MPH, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on March 21, 2022, against South Carolina Supreme Court Justice John W. Kittredge. 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. 25. Specifically, the magistrate judge’s report concerns Plaintiff’s motion to stay, ECF No. 21, and motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 22. As noted by both the magistrate judge and the South Carolina Supreme Court, Plaintiff “is a prolific frivolous filer.” ECF No. 25 at 2. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s two motions be denied. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for decision. The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, Page 1 of 2 in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. §636. In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200

(4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the

magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 25, is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s motion to stay, ECF No. 21, and motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 22, are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Terry L. Wooten Terry L. Wooten Senior United States District Judge November 7, 2022 Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2