United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
BRYAN HARWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Thomas Bradford Waters, a prisoner proceeding pro se,
commenced this action by filing a complaint pursuant to both
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), against the above-named Defendants alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. See ECF No.
1. The matter is now before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, who recommends
summarily dismissing Defendant ATF Agent Alan C. Townsend
from this case. See R & R, ECF No. 11.
Plaintiff has filed a timely objection to the R & R.
See ECF No. 18.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge’s 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 must
conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R & R
to which specific objections are made, and it 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 must engage in 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 [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]’s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Townsend gave perjured
testimony in front of a federal grand jury, thereby depriving
Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1 at 7-8.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court summarily
dismiss the complaint as to Defendant Townsend because
Plaintiff’s claims against him are barred by Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). R & R at 5.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation, arguing he does not believe he is
collaterally attacking his conviction by alleging Defendant
Townsend committed perjury. See ECF No. 18.
Heck, the Supreme Court held that to recover damages
for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,
or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction invalid, a plaintiff bringing a §
1983 claim must establish that the conviction or sentence has
been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared
invalid. 512 U.S. at 487 (1994). In this case, a
federal jury found Plaintiff guilty of being a felon in
unlawful possession of a firearm. See R & R at 4
n.3 (taking judicial notice of the district court records
from Plaintiff’s criminal case). The Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that Heck bars
Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against
Defendant Townsend because success on them would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction and sentence (i.e.,
that perjured testimony led to his indictment and subsequent
conviction), which have not been overturned or otherwise
called into question. See Young v. Nickols, 413 F.3d
416, 417 (4th Cir. 2005) (“Heck . . . bars a
prisoner’s § 1983 claim if the relief sought
necessarily implies the invalidity of his criminal
judgment.”). Accordingly, the Court overrules
Court has reviewed the entire record, including
Plaintiff’s complaint, the Magistrate Judge’s R
& R, and Plaintiff’s objection, and the Court has
applied the relevant law. The Court has conducted a de novo
review of the R & R and finds no merit in
Plaintiff’s objection. For the reasons stated in this
Order and in the Magistrate Judge’s R & R, the
Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and adopts and
incorporates the R & R [ECF No. 11] by reference. It is
therefore ORDERED that Defendant Townsend is DISMISSED from
this action without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter
was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling.
The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint
pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of
its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se
litigants. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151
(4th Cir. 1978). But see Beaudett v. City of
Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985)
(“Principles requiring generous construction of pro se
complaints are not, however, without limits. Gordon
directs district courts to construe pro se complaints
liberally. It does not require those courts to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them.”).
 Plaintiff states in his complaint that
he seeks “monetary, punitive, and actual damages in the
sum of 500, 000.00” ...