United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for review of Plaintiff's
objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R &
R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D.
Austin, who recommends summarily dismissing this action
without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process. See ECF Nos. 12 & 14.
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).
a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging Defendants-the State of South Carolina, a
circuit court judge (Defendant Dennis), and an assistant
solicitor (Defendant Simpson)-have violated his
constitutional rights in connection with his pending state
murder charge. See ECF No. 1 (complaint). The
Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing this action
because (1) the State of South Carolina is immune from suit
in federal court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, (2)
Defendant Dennis is entitled to absolute judicial immunity,
(3) Defendant Simpson is entitled to prosecutorial immunity,
and (4) Younger abstention is appropriate. R & R at
objections, Plaintiff rehashes the allegations in his
complaint and asserts he should be able to maintain suit
against Defendant Dennis and Defendant Simpson. See
Pl.'s Objs. [ECF No. 14]. However, as thoroughly
explained in the R & R, these two defendants are entitled
to absolute immunity given the allegations in Plaintiff's
complaint. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349
(1978) (judicial immunity); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424
U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity). Plaintiff also
states he “seeks to substitute his monetary claim to be
exonerated from all claims that the State has over”
him, Pl.'s Objs. at p. 7, and indicates he is now seeking
a writ of habeas corpus. See Id. at pp. 1-2.
However, habeas relief is not available via this § 1983
action. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78
(2005) (“a prisoner in state custody cannot use a
§ 1983 action to challenge ‘the fact or duration
of his confinement'” (quoting Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973))). Accordingly, the
Court will summarily dismiss this action.
foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS the R
& R [ECF No. 12], and DISMISSES this
action without prejudice and without issuance and service
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 pro se 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 ...