United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Bryan Harwell United States District Judge
Gregory Green, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
above-captioned Defendants. See ECF No. 1. The
matter is before the Court for consideration of
Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Paige J. Gossett, who recommends summarily dismissing
Plaintiff's complaint.See ECF Nos. 7 & 9.
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. §
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).
§ 1983 complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his due process
rights were violated when he pled guilty to a drug offense in
state court, and that “this unconstitutional conviction
was used to Plaintiff's detriment in a subsequent
conviction.” ECF No. 1 at p. 14-15. He sues the
assistant solicitor who prosecuted him, as well as the
solicitor and the county in which he pleaded guilty.
Id. at pp. 2-3. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages
from Defendants “for the injuries sustained due to the
unconstitutional conviction, ” namely the “five
years of incarceration that he served from July 20, 2006 thru
July 1, 2011.” Id. at pp. 5-6, 15. The
Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing
Plaintiff's complaint because (1) the solicitors are
shielded by absolute prosecutorial immunity, and (2) the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. R & R at pp. 3-6.
Plaintiff lodges two objections to the R & R,
see ECF No. 9, the Court finds Plaintiff's
claims fail not only for the reasons set forth in the R &
R but also for a simple reason not discussed in the R &
R-they are barred by the Supreme Court's decision in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck
bars Plaintiff's claims because success on them would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his drug conviction and
five-year prison sentence, which have not been overturned or
otherwise called into question. See Wilkinson v.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (explaining that under
Heck and related cases, “a state
prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior
invalidation)-no matter the relief sought (damages or
equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner's
suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison
proceedings)-if success in that action would necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its
duration”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,
646 (1997) (extending Heck to civil rights actions
that do not directly challenge confinement, but instead
contest procedures which necessarily imply unlawful
confinement); 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.”). Under Heck and its progeny, the
Court cannot grant Plaintiff the relief he seeks. See,
e.g., Mayfield v. King, No. CA
0:10-1487-JFA-PJG, 2010 WL 4929124, at *1 (D.S.C. Nov. 30,
2010) (finding Heck barred Plaintiff's §
1983 action alleging “that the defendants have violated
his due process rights and that he has been maliciously and
falsely imprisoned”). Accordingly, the Court modifies
the R & R to reflect this additional reason for
dismissal, and overrules Plaintiff's
foregoing reasons, the Court overrules Plaintiff's
objections, adopts the R & R [ECF No. 7] as modified
herein, and DISMISSES this action
without prejudice and without issuance and service of
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Magistrate Judge issued the R
& R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule ...