United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is now before the court
with the [ECF No. 27] Report and Recommendation (“R
& R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E.
Rogers, III,  filed on March 17, 2016. In the R & R,
the Magistrate Judge recommends that the court should dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff
timely filed objections to the R & R. See Obj.
[ECF No. 29].
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of
every portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report to which
objections have been filed. Id. However, the court
need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes
only “general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed,
specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions
are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005).
R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommended summary dismissal
of the Complaint in this case. See R & R at 12
(“For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the
district judge dismiss the complaint in this case without
prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.”). Plaintiff timely objected to this
recommendation. However, upon review, while Plaintiff filed
several objections, none are sufficient to overcome the
Magistrate Judge’s thorough and accurate analysis of
the claims in the Complaint.
Plaintiff appears to misunderstand or disagree with the
procedure set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and
1915A of screening pro se complaints before service
is authorized. He states in his objections that Magistrate
Judge Rogers is acting as a defense attorney in his Section
1915 review. The court overrules these objections. Magistrate
Judge Rogers conducted a proper screening of the
plaintiff’s complaint under the summary dismissal
Plaintiff objects in a conclusory fashion to the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that his claims concerning his
disciplinary proceedings are barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). He does not state why he
believes that Heck [and Edwards v. Balisok,
520 U.S. 641 (1997)] do not bar the claims. Nor does he
indicate that he has successfully attacked his disciplinary
hearing convictions. The Magistrate Judge properly found that
an award of damages or injunctive relief in this Section 1983
action would imply the invalidity of his disciplinary hearing
convictions and that these claims are barred by
next objects to the recommended summary dismissal of his
civil conspiracy claim on the basis that 28 U.S.C. §
1915 “does not allow Magistrate Judge Rogers to
determine what evidence was not presented”, as this
would be “summary judgment arguments”. (Obj., ECF
No. 29, p. 5) In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge cites a
case from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding
evidence that is required in proving a civil conspiracy.
See Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416 (4th
Cir. 1996), cited at R&R, p. 9. However, he recommended
summary dismissal of the claim on the basis of the
Petitioner’s failure to plead the required elements of
plaintiff next appears to contend that his access to courts
claim should not be dismissed because he alleged a cognizable
claim. However, he does not address the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that he did not allege that a
non-frivolous post-conviction or civil rights legal claim has
been frustrated. As the Magistrate Judge observed, the
Plaintiff filed the case at bar and actively made filings in
the case while incarcerated at Turbeville Correctional.
the plaintiff objects to the recommendation by the Magistrate
Judge that, if the Section 1983 claims are dismissed by this
Court, then this Court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. He
asserts that the Magistrate Judge should have stated
“what state claims he’s referring to . . . not
just jumble-up all my state-claims into one.” (Obj. p.
7) This argument lacks merit. The Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation is consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),
which provides that, after a district court has dismissed
“all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction”, it may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over non-federal claims in the complaint.
court has thoroughly reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R
& R, and the entire record (including Plaintiff’s
objections), and finds itself in agreement with the