United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court on LaConey's petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
requesting reinstatement of his bond and release from state
custody. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett
for pre-trial proceedings. On May 2, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending this matter be summarily
dismissed without prejudice, and without requiring Respondent
to file a return. ECF No. 7. The Magistrate Judge advised
Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he
failed to do so. Petitioner filed objections on May 11, 2018.
ECF No. 11.
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate
Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the
matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
considering de novo the record, the applicable law,
the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and
Petitioner's objections, the court agrees with the
Report's recommendation that the Petition be dismissed.
alleges he was arrested in Richland County on July 3, 2014,
and charged with harassment and threatening the use of a
destructive device against the Richland County Judicial
Center. ECF Nos. 1, 11. Petitioner was released on
bond on October 3, 2014 and indicted on November 12, 2014.
ECF No. 1-1 at 2-3. Although trials were set for December 7,
2015 and May 31, 2016, neither occurred. Instead, the state
requested a competency examination and this was granted on
July 21, 2016. Id. at 3. Petitioner's bond was
revoked, and he submitted to a competency examination on
August 1, 2016. After the examination, Petitioner states the
trial court refused to release him on bond, and did not set a
competency hearing date. On May 22, 2017, Judge McMahon held
a hearing on Petitioner's pro se motion,
relieved his defense counsel, and appointed new counsel.
Id. at 4. On August 31, 2017, Judge Newman held a
hearing on Petitioner's motion for reinstatement of bond,
which was denied. Id. A competency hearing was held
on February 2, 2018, and Petitioner was found competent to
stand trial. ECF No. 11. at 4. A trial date was set
for the week of June 11, 2018. Id.
filed a Petition for Original Jurisdiction and for
Declaratory Judgment and Motion to Relieve Counsel in the
South Carolina Supreme Court in January 2018. Id.
The Supreme Court requested the State file a return, which it
did on February 22, 2018, and, according to Petitioner, the
Petition was dismissed. Id.
objections, Petitioner argues the abstention doctrine set
forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) and
its progeny should not apply to his case because he does not
have an adequate opportunity to raise his claims in the
ongoing state proceedings. ECF No. 11 at 5. He contends
“extraordinary circumstances” exist which render
the state court “incapable of fairly
adjudicating” the issues before it and urges a
“relaxation of the deference to be accorded to the
state criminal process.” Id. at 6. He also
argues the state court is an alleged victim in the underlying
criminal case, and therefore has “lost jurisdiction to
adjudicate the matter.” Id. at 7. Finally,
Petitioner objects to the finding he can seek relief through
his counsel in the state court matter, because “de
facto counsel has no valid appointment to represent
Petitioner” and has “refused to pursue the matter
further.” Id. at 8.
court finds Petitioner's objections unavailing. The court
has reviewed the facts as submitted by Petitioner, who
requests release from his “unlawful detention.”
However, relief is not available in this court for the
reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge. This court will not
interfere with a state criminal prosecution due to the
prohibition in Younger. Further, Petitioner cannot
obtain dismissal of an indictment or prevention of
prosecution through habeas corpus. Although Petitioner
alleges he is unable to raise these issues in state court
because his appointed counsel refuses to do so, Petitioner
has in fact raised these issues at the state trial and
the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This
Petition is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring
Respondent to file a return.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Petitioner also filed an action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the same facts
and requesting the same relief. See Civil Action No.
3:18-cv-850, LaConey v. Wilson. That action was
dismissed on April 18, 2018, and a motion to reconsider
judgment was denied on May 8, 2018. See No.
3:18-cv-850, ECF Nos. 12, 16.
 The facts alleged by Plaintiff and
recited herein are identical to those raised in his §