Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Long v. Soggs

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

April 23, 2019

William Von Long, Plaintiff,
v.
Keven Bradley Soggs, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Donald C. Coggins, Jr., United States District Judge.

         This 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.[1] ECF No. 18.

         APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS

         The 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)).

         The 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).[2] 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 dismissed.[3]

         CONCLUSION

         Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report (ECF No. [16]) of the Magistrate Judge and overrules Plaintiff's objections. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of process.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

         The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

---------

Notes:

[1] Plaintiff also filed a letter which the Court has considered in its ruling.

[2] Heck provides that a ยง 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.