United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
BRYAN HARWELL CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff
Gregory Green's objections to the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, who recommends summarily
dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without
prejudice. See ECF Nos. 8 & 10.
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).
a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed his complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his due process
rights were violated when the prosecutor amended the
indictment at a guilty plea hearing in state court.
See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff sues the assistant
solicitor who prosecuted him, as well as the solicitor and
the county in which he pleaded guilty, and he seeks monetary
damages stemming from his “unconstitutional
conviction.” Id. at p. 9. The Magistrate Judge
recommends summarily dismissing Plaintiff's complaint
because (1) the assistant solicitor is shielded by absolute
prosecutorial immunity, and (2) the complaint fails to state
a claim as to the solicitor and the county. R & R at pp.
Plaintiff lodges several objections to the R & R,
see ECF No. 10, the Court finds his claims fail not
only for the reasons set forth in the R & R but also for
a simple reason not discussed in the R & R-they are
barred by the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Heck bars
Plaintiff's claims because success on them would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his drug conviction and
prison sentence, which have not been overturned or otherwise
called into question. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S.
74, 81-82 (2005) (explaining that under Heck and
related cases, “a state prisoner's § 1983
action is barred (absent prior invalidation)-no matter the
relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the
target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct leading to
conviction or internal prison proceedings)-if success in that
action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of
confinement or its duration”); Young v.
Nickols, 413 F.3d 416, 417 (4th Cir. 2005)
(“Heck . . . bars a prisoner's § 1983
claim if the relief sought necessarily implies the invalidity
of his criminal judgment.”). Under Heck and
its progeny, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff the relief he
seeks. See, e.g., Green v. Horry Cty., No.
4:17-cv-01304-RBH, 2017 WL 4324843, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 29,
2017) (finding Heck barred a similar § 1983
action filed by Plaintiff), aff'd, 709 Fed.Appx.
215 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the Court modifies the R
& R to reflect this additional reason for dismissal, and
overrules Plaintiff's objections.
foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS AS
MODIFIED the Magistrate Judge's R &
R [ECF No. 8], and DISMISSES Plaintiff's
complaint without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Magistrate Judge issued the R
& R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The Court is mindful of its
duty to liberally construe Plaintiff's pro se filings.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(recognizing “[a] document filed pro se is to
be liberally construed” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). But see United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d
789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012) (“Although courts must
liberally construe the claims of pro se litigants,
the special judicial solicitude with which a district court
should view ...