Hopkins v. Smith et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 37 Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. Hopkins's Complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 10/17/2017. [Copy of Order mailed to plaintiff] (LDR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARCUS ADDONIS HOPKINS
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-25-KS-MTP

LARON SMITH and GAIEA CAGLE

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [37] of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker (the “Magistrate”), filed on September 18, 2017, in which he
recommends that the Court dismiss without prejudice the Complaint [1] filed by Marcus Addonis
Hopkins (“Hopkins”). After reviewing the record, the Objection [38], and the applicable law, the
Court finds that the Report and Recommendation [37] is both factually and legally accurate, and
that it should be adopted as the opinion of the Court.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducts an independent review of the
entire record and a de novo review of the matters raised by Hopkins’s Objection [38].
In his Report and Recommendation [37], the Magistrate found that Hopkins’s claim of
wrongful arrest stemmed from a charge of burglary against him that is still pending in state court.
Any ruling on Hopkin’s claims by this Court, then, would necessarily implicate the validity of any
potential conviction in the pending state prosecution. Relying on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 114 S. Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1994), which held that a plaintiff alleging wrongful arrest
must first show that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into
question by federal habeas corpus, the Magistrate found that Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] should be
dismissed without prejudice and that he be allowed to reassert his claims in the event that the

charges against him are dismissed, he is acquitted, or any future conviction is reversed, expunged,
declared invalid, or called into question by federal habeas corpus.
Hopkins’s Objection [38] does not specifically address the Magistrate’s findings and
conclusions. Instead, he simply reiterates his claims and the relief that he seeks.
Because it is not disputed that charges for which he was allegedly wrongfully arrested are
still pending against Hopkins, the only appropriate courses of actions the Court may take are
dismissal without prejudice or staying this action until the state criminal case or likelihood of a
criminal case is ended. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d
973 (2007). Hopkins does not argue that staying this action is the more appropriate of the Court’s
options, nor would the Court find such arguments persuasive. Given the amount of time the state
proceedings could potentially take and considering the fact that Defendant Cagle has neither been
served nor appeared in this action, the Court agrees with the Magistrate that dismissal without
prejudice is a more efficient use of resources.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation
[37] is adopted in full as the opinion of the Court. Hopkins’s Complaint [1] is dismissed without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, on this, the 17th day of October, 2017.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2