Adams v. Tega Cay South Carolina, The City of, No. 0:2013cv02925 - Document 73 (D.S.C. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION approving 69 Report and Recommendation, terminiating as moot 43 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, terminiating as moot 39 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, termin iating as moot 30 Motion for Summary Judgment, terminiating as moot 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's state law claims are remanded to the York County Court of Common Pleas. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 12/22/2014. Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court. (cbru, ) Modified to edit text on 12/22/2014 (cbru, ).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Adams v. Tega Cay South Carolina, The City of Doc. 73 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Frank M. Adams, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) The City of Tega Cay, South Carolina, ) Defendant. ) _________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 0:13-2925-MGL ORDER AND OPINION Pro se Plaintiff Frank M. Adams (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against the City of Tega Cay, South Carolina (“Defendant”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of regulations relating to political signs contained in Defendant’s zoning ordinance. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 30 & 44.) Plaintiff also filed two motions for judicial notice (ECF Nos. 39 & 43.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling. On November 13, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this matter be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff filed objections on December 1, 2014 (ECF No. 71) and Defendant filed a reply on December 18, 2014. (ECF No. 72.) The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. Dockets.Justia.com § 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s federal claims be dismissed for lack of standing and that all pending motions be terminated. (ECF No. 69 at 5.) The Magistrate Judge further recommends that Plaintiff’s state law claims be remanded. The Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff fails to satisfy the redressability element of the constitutional standing requirement because a ruling in Plaintiff’s favor by this Court would not remedy Plaintiff’s stated injury—the restricted ability to post political signs on his property— because the restrictive covenants controlling the use of Plaintiff’s property prohibit the posting of signs without prior approval of an Architectural Review Committee. Plaintiff filed brief objections to the Report and Recommendation simply restating a previous argument considered by the Magistrate Judge concerning the Architectural Review Committee’s enforcement practices. (ECF No. 71.) Defendant filed a reply noting that Plaintiff failed to point to any authority to contradict the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain the federal claims against Defendant as they have been asserted in his complaint. (ECF No. 72.) After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper. Plaintiff’s objections fail to cast any doubt on the well-reasoned substantive findings and analysis of the Magistrate Judge. The Court finds no error and Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is approved and incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff’s federal claims are hereby dismissed and all pending motions terminated as moot. Plaintiff’s state law claims are hereby -2- remanded to the York County Court of Common Pleas. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Mary G. Lewis United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina December 22, 2014 -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
