United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jimmy Curles'
objections to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E.
Rogers, III's Report and Recommendation (“R &
R”) (ECF Nos. 10, 9, & 7). The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff's
claims without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court
overrules Plaintiff's objections and adopts the
Magistrate Judge's R & R.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
proceeding pro se, brings this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks money damages for false
imprisonment. He contends that he was supposed to be released
on January 1, 2016, and that his probation violation that
resulted in a one-year prison sentence should not have put
him in jail because he had six years and 156 days of credit
time. The Magistrate Judge issued his R & R on November
17, 2017. Plaintiff filed two objections on November 27.
Accordingly, this matter is ripe for consideration.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The R & R has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility for making a final determination remains with
the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). Parties may make written objections to the R & R
within fourteen days after being served with a copy of it. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court must conduct a de novo
review of any portion of the R & R to which a specific
objection is made, and it may accept, reject, or modify the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in whole
or in part. Id. Additionally, the Court may receive
more evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. Id. A party's failure to
object is taken as the party's agreement with the
Magistrate Judge's conclusions. See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Absent a timely, specific
objection-or as to those portions of the R & R to which
no specific objection is 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
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's
se filings are held to a less stringent standard than
those drafted by attorneys, Gordon v. Leeke, 574
F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and federal district courts
must construe such pleadings liberally to allow the
development of potentially meritorious claims, see Hughes
v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam). The liberal
construction requirement, however, does not mean courts can
ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth claims
cognizable in federal district court. See Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir.
of Plaintiff's objections have merit. In fact, his
objections do not actually object to the R & R's
conclusions. Viewed charitably, Plaintiff's first
objection seeks an order from this Court requiring state and
county corrections facilities to provide him copies of
various requests and grievances. His second objection states
that the county and state used a fake probation violation to
keep him in prison.
order for Plaintiff to state a false imprisonment claim under
§ 1983, he must show that his conviction was
invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994). Plaintiff has made no such showing either in his
complaint or in his objections. The Magistrate Judge has also
independently concluded-using the South Carolina Department
of Corrections' Inmate Locator Function-that Plaintiff
has not been successful in seeking to overturn his
convictions because he is currently incarcerated. Plaintiff
makes no objection to that finding either. Finally, if
Plaintiff s objections are construed as an attempt to reduce
his sentence, then his action under § 1983 is not the
proper vehicle. Instead, Plaintiff “must seek federal
habeas corpus relief (or appropriate state relief)
instead.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78
(2005). Accordingly, Plaintiffs claim is subject to summary
dismissal and the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation that this matter be dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that
Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED and that
the R & R is ADOPTED. Accordingly, the
Court summarily DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims
without prejudice and without issuance and service of