United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Bryan Harwell, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court for consideration of
Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Jacquelyn D. Austin, who recommends summarily dismissing
Plaintiff's pro se complaint. 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).
Terron Gerhard Dizzley, a state prisoner proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Melvin Garrett, an
investigator for the Georgetown County Sheriff's Office.
See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges Defendant obtained
an arrest warrant from a magistrate judge without probable
cause, see ECF No. 1-1 (statement of claim), and
Plaintiff seeks “5 million dollars for actual and
punitive damages.” ECF No. 1 at p. 6; see ECF
No. 1-1 at p. 6. The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily
dismissing this action because Plaintiff's complaint is
frivolous. See R & R at pp. 4-6. Plaintiff has
filed objections to the R & R. See ECF Nos. 11
conducted a de novo review, the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's claims for actual and
punitive damages are barred by the Supreme Court's
decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)
(“[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a §
1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a
judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply
the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would,
the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can
demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated.”). A judgment for Plaintiff would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his state-court
conviction and sentence for murder.Accordingly, the Court will
summarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice. See,
e.g., Russell v. Guilford Cty. Municipality,
599 Fed.Appx. 65 (4th Cir. 2015) (indicating a dismissal
based on Heck should be without prejudice);
Poston v. Conrad, 580 Fed.Appx. 180 (4th Cir. 2014)
(same); Russell, supra (affirming dismissal
of complaint as frivolous based on Heck); Joseph
v. Gillespie, 73 F.3d 357, 1995 WL 756280, at *1 (4th
Cir. 1995) (same).
foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS the R
& R [ECF No. 9], 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 ...