United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
C. Coggins, Jr., United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Complaint and
Amended Complaint alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. ECF Nos. 1, 10. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E.
Rogers, III, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”). On February 6, 2019,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this
action be dismissed. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff filed objections
to the Report. ECF No. 18.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a
specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error
in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of timely
filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo
review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” (citation omitted)).
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's
false arrest claim because Plaintiff was arrested pursuant to
a facially valid warrant. He further recommends dismissal of
Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim pursuant to
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff
generally objects to the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. Out of an abundance of caution for a pro se Plaintiff,
the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, the
applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Having done so, the Court agrees with the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge that the action should be
the Court adopts the Report (ECF No. ) of the Magistrate
Judge and overrules Plaintiff's objections. This action
is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance of service of process.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
 Plaintiff also filed a letter which
the Court has considered in its ruling.
Heck provides that a §
1983 claim cannot be pursued based on allegations of unlawful
circumstances surrounding a criminal prosecution until the
conviction has been set aside or the charges have been