United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge.
pro se Plaintiff, Terrance Adams, a state prison
inmate, initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging that he was wrongfully convicted of
first-degree burglary,  asserting that false evidence was used
to obtain the arrest warrant and indictment.
seeks damages in the amount of $150, 000.00 for each year he
is incarcerated on the contested conviction. Plaintiff filed
this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
reviewing the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge assigned to
this action prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and recommends summary
dismissal of this case based on the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994). (ECF No. 26). The Report sets forth, in detail,
the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and
this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a
was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was
entered on the docket on August 14, 2018. (ECF No. 26).
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on August 29, 2018.
(ECF No. 30). Plaintiff then filed two more documents labeled
objections on (1) August 31, 2018 (ECF No. 32); and (2)
October 4, 2018 (ECF No. 35). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an
additional seven “supplemental objections” or
“additional attachments” on the following dates:
(1) November 5, 2018 (ECF No. 37); (2) November 7, 2018 (ECF
No. 38); (3) November 26, 2018 (ECF No. 39); (4) November 30,
2018 (ECF No. 40); (5) December 21, 2018 (ECF No. 41); and
(6) January 4, 2019 (ECF No. 42); (7) January 11, 2019 (ECF
No. 44). In sum, Plaintiff has filed ten documents labeled
either objections, supplements to objections, or additional
attachments thereto. The Court will consider all ten filings.
Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
Magistrate Judge opines that under the United States Supreme
Court's ruling in Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994), Plaintiff's Complaint, which seeks
damages for an allegedly wrongful criminal conviction, is
subject to summary dismissal.
Court has attempted to review all of Plaintiff's
“objections” in his ten filings and the
attachments thereto, and finds that Plaintiff has failed to
make any specific objections to the Report. To the contrary,
Plaintiff merely recites the circumstances that led him to
bring this action, which is largely a reassertion of
information he provided in his Complaint. He does not make
any arguments regarding the Magistrate's Report.
district court is only required to conduct a de novo
review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's
Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W.Va.
Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir.
1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of
the Magistrate's Report, this Court is not required to
give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Thus,
the Court must only review those portions of the Report to
which Plaintiff has made a specific written objection.
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).
objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge
to focus attention on those issues- factual and legal-that
are at the heart of the parties' dispute.'”
Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, No.
0:15-cv-04009-JMC, 2017 WL 6345402, at *5 n.6 (D.S.C. Dec.
12, 2017) (citing One Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 2121
E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996)). A
specific objection to the Magistrate's Report thus
requires more than a reassertion of arguments from the
Complaint or a mere citation to legal authorities. See
Workman v. Perry, No. 6:17-cv- 00765-RBH, 2017 WL
4791150, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2017). A specific objection
must “direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
stated, nonspecific objections have the same effect as would
a failure to object.” Staley v. Norton, No.
9:07-0288-PMD, 2007 WL 821181, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2007)
(citing Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human
Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). The Court
reviews portions “not objected to-including those
portions to which only ‘general and conclusory'
objections have been made-for clear error.”
Id. (emphasis added) (citing Diamond, 416
F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 200;
Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47).
No. 30, Plaintiff complains that he was not granted access to
the law library at Lieber Correctional Institution. In
support, Plaintiff attaches an inmate staff request stamped
August 17, 2018. (ECF No. 30-1 p. 12). From what this Court
can decipher, Plaintiff claims that he was not able to
research cases supporting his argument that “[t]he SCDC
website reflects that Plaintiff is serving periods of
incarceration for numerous convictions, which were process
illegally through the court.” (ECF No. 30 p. 2).
initial matter, to the extent this Court would view
Plaintiff's “objection” as a motion for an
extension of time, the request is now moot given that
Plaintiff clearly was able to access the law library after
August 17, 2018. Thereafter, Plaintiff was able to make nine
more filings containing case citations constituting
“objections” with this Court over a span of
almost seven months.
No. 30, Plaintiff references his PCR action filed in Richland
County on May 31, 2016 and his 60(b) Motion to be Relieved
from Judgment. However, Plaintiff merely makes arguments to
this Court regarding that PCR application and motion in state
court. Plaintiff states: “Judge Barber answer was he
not able to ruled on the merits in Plaintiff case, cause he
doesn't have his records before him, which clearly shows
bias towards Plaintiff and favoritism for Defendants.”
(ECF No. 30 p. 3). Plaintiff goes on in his
“objections” to discuss how he tried to write the
Supreme Court of South Carolina Office of Disciplinary
Counsel; however, the ODC told Plaintiff it did not have
authority to intervene in the matter that was presently