United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, who recommends summarily
dismissing Plaintiff's pro se complaint without
prejudice. See ECF No. 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. §
636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
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).
proceeding pro se, has filed a civil complaint against the
State of South Carolina seeking to challenge his involuntary
civil commitment under the South Carolina Sexually Violent
Predator Act. See ECF No. 1. The Magistrate
Judge recommends summarily dismissing this action because (1)
habeas corpus is the proper avenue for the relief that
Plaintiff seeks; (2) the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against
the State of South Carolina for monetary damages; and (3) no
amendment could cure the defects in Plaintiff's
complaint. See R & R at pp. 5-11.
the time for filing objections, Plaintiff filed a motion to
hold this case in abeyance. See ECF No. 11. However,
he does not specifically object to the Magistrate Judge's
proposed findings and recommendations. The Court reiterates
that absent a specific objection, it need only review the R
& R for clear error and need not give reasons for
adopting it. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315;
Camby, 718 F.2d at 199-200. Nevertheless, the Court
has conducted a de novo review of the R & R and agrees
with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. The relief that
Plaintiff seeks-release from custody and invalidation of his
criminal conviction-is available only in a habeas corpus
action. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973). However, the Court does modify the R & R to
reflect that 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(not § 2254) is the proper avenue for habeas relief in
light of Plaintiff's current state civil commitment.
See, e.g., Gaster v. S.C. Dep't of
Corr., 67 Fed.Appx. 821, 2003 WL 21465454, at n.* (4th
Cir. 2003) (explaining 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper
type of habeas petition for a person “civilly committed
under the South Carolina Sexually Violent Predator
Act”). Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages, they are not available pursuant to Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Court will adopt the
R & R and deny Plaintiff's abeyance
foregoing reasons, ADOPTS the R & R [ECF
No. 9] as modified and DISMISSES
Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. The Court
DENIES Plaintiff's motion to hold in
abeyance [ECF No. 11].
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Magistrate Judge issued the R
& R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), and she 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 ...