Harrison v. Cotter et al
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 13 Report and Recommendations, dismissing Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/27/2012. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Ray Anthony Harrison,
Sgt. Daniel Cotter,
Investigator Shugart; and
Mr. R.L. Turner,
C/A No. 0:11-2592-TMC
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., all pre-trial
proceedings were referred to a Magistrate Judge. On December 22, 2011, Magistrate
Judge Paige J. Gossett issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending
that the complaint in this case be dismissed without prejudice.
(Dkt. # 13). The
Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff a notice advising him of his right to file objections to
the Report. (Dkt. # 13 at 8).
On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report. (Dkt. # 15).
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the
Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to
the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court reviews 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 a
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 Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts
and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
Plaintiff is incarcerated at Perry Correctional Institution. In his Complaint, brought
pursuant to §1983, Plaintiff alleges Defendants have violated his constitutional rights in
regard to a disciplinary proceeding. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the
United States Supreme Court held that in order to recover damages in a § 1983 action, a
plaintiff must “prove that the conviction or sentence at issue has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to
make such determinations, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus.” 512 U.S. at 486–87.
The Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff's § 1983 claims arising out of his disciplinary
hearing are barred by Heck and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997)(extending
holding in Heck to disciplinary proceedings). Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommended
the Complaint be dismissed as Plaintiff has not shown or even alleged that his
disciplinary conviction has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid.
Additionally, the Magistrate Judge found that the Complaint should be dismissed
because there was no basis for diversity or supplemental jurisdiction and Plaintiff has
not presented a viable federal question. While Plaintiff has filed objections, the court
cannot discern any specific objections to the dispositive portions of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report. Plaintiff has failed to show any reason why Heck does not bar this
court's consideration of his §1983 claims or provide any basis for federal court
Plaintiff merely repeats the factual allegations that he
raised in his
Complaint. As such, this court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that these
claims be dismissed.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the
standard set forth above, the court finds Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, the
Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
January 27, 2012
Greenville, South Carolina
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?