United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Margaret B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge
Randall White (“Plaintiff”) is a former inmate of
the Bureau of Prisons who is currently housed at Residential
Reentry Management (RPM) Miami in Miami, Florida. Plaintiff,
proceeding pro se, brought the underlying action against
Defendants William B. Traxler, Jr. (Former United States
District Judge for the District of South Carolina); A.
Bradley Parham (Assistant United States Attorney); Randy Lee
Smith (Special Agent with the Drug Enforcement
Administration); Miramar Police Department; Benjamin Thomas
Stepp (Federal Public Defender); Lance Armstrong (Attorney
for Plaintiff during appeal); Enterprise Car Rental;
Courtyard Marriott; Holiday Inn, Inc.; Days Inn; Bell
Telephone Company; William M. Catoe, Jr. (former United
States Magistrate Judge); and Hilton Hotel(s). Plaintiff
brings this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388, 397 (1971) alleging violations of his civil rights. ECF
No. 15. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling.
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 1, 1998, after a jury trial, Plaintiff was found
guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine. No. 2:98-cr-00293, ECF No. 104. On January 31, 1999,
Judge William B. Traxler sentenced Plaintiff to 400 months
imprisonment. No. 2:98-cr-00293, ECF No. 131. On October 29,
2015, this court ordered that Plaintiff's sentenced be
reduced to 292 months pursuant to retroactive amendments to
the United States Sentencing Guidelines. No. 2:98-cr-00293,
ECF No. 266. Plaintiff brought the instant action on February
28, 2018. ECF No. 1.
March 15, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a proper form
order, giving Plaintiff until April 5, 2018 to bring his
complaint into proper form for service. ECF No. 5. On April
30, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a second proper form
order, giving Plaintiff until May 21, 2018 to comply. ECF No.
13. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 17, 2018. ECF
No. 15. Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that those
associated with his 1998 arrest, conviction, and sentencing
and appeal deprived him of his civil rights. ECF No. 15-1 at
5. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that “each of the
herein named Defendants knew or should have known that they
were violating Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and
Eighth Amendment rights.” Id.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on June 1,
2018. ECF No. 23. The Magistrate Judge recommended that
Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice and
without issuance and service of process for several reasons.
First, the Magistrate Judge found that a Bivens
action is subject to no federal statute of limitations.
Id. at 5. However, the Magistrate Judge elaborated
that the statute of limitations for the analogous state
personal injury action would apply; in South Carolina, that
statute of limitations would be three years. Id. The
Magistrate Judge therefore found that Plaintiff's claim
is sixteen years too late. Id.; see S.C. Code Ann.
§15-3-530(5). Second, the Magistrate Judge found that,
even if Plaintiff's claim was not time barred, Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 478 (1994), would apply.
Id. at 6. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found
that pursuant to Heck, a prisoner cannot file a
§ 1983/ Bivens action if a successful outcome
in the action would imply that the prisoner's conviction
or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has
been successfully challenged. Id. The Magistrate
Judge found that Plaintiff has not successfully challenged
his conviction or sentence; thus, Heck bars
Plaintiff's suit. Id. Pursuant to Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th
Cir. 2005), Plaintiff was advised of his right to file
objections to the Report and Recommendation. Id. at
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 11,
2018. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate
Judge made “many EGREGIOUS ERRORS” in his Report
and Recommendation. Id. at 1. First, Plaintiff
asserts that the Magistrate Judge is “recharacterizing
his Constitutional claims by rephrasing the claims and then
addressing ONLY part of the claim . . . .” Id.
Second, Plaintiff states that the Magistrate Judge used facts
“based solely on the Presentence Report, ” and
that the present suit will reveal more facts. Id. at
2. Third, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge's
finding that Bivens and § 1983 actions are
analogous is incorrect. Id. Plaintiff indicates that
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is
In the last paragraph on Page 4 of the Magistrate's
R&R, it states that the amended complaint should be
dismissed because it is clear on its face that it is time
barred by the state statute of limitations. Then, on Page 5
of the R&R, the second paragraph begins by stating,
"With regard to any §1983 claim, there is no
federal statute of limitation.
alternative, Plaintiff action argues that his claim is not
time barred, as he suffers an “'ongoing
Plaintiff argues that Heck does not apply in this
case, as Plaintiff's suit would not draw into question
the validity of his conviction. Id. at 4. Fifth,
Plaintiff asserts that the Report and Recommendation
“DOES NOT address the claims and FACTS before the Court
in the Bivens pleadings.” Id.
Review of the Report ...