Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wirtz v. McMahan

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

June 5, 2015

Timothy Ray Wirtz, Plaintiff,
v.
Sgt. David McMahan, in his unofficial capacity, Defendant.

ORDER

Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 37), recommending that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R. For the reasons stated below, the Court the adopts the R & R and dismisses this action without prejudice.

Legal Standard

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. 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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made.

Here, however, because no objection has been made, this Court "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 & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation. See Camhy v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).

Discussion

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiffs claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner cannot bring a Section 1983 suit for damages where a judgment in favor of the prisoner would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Id. at 486-87. Here, Plaintiffs' claims of false imprisonment and that Defendant planted evidence necessarily imply the invalidity of his convictions. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R & R (Dkt. No. 37) and DISMISSES this action without prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.