Luckett v. Simon et al

Filing 83

ORDER ADOPTING 77 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Defendants' motion to dismiss 52 is granted as to any claims in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint which question the validity of Plaintiff's conviction or implicate t he duration of his sentence. Defendants' motion 52 is denied as to Plaintiff's due process and court access claims. Plaintiff's motion to file unnotarized documents 65 is terminated as moot. This matter is re-referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings, including the issuance of a scheduling order. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 11/04/2014. (gmil) Modified to edit docket text on 11/4/2014 (gmil).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Mr. Leroy Luckett,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Ms. S. Bracey Simon, Lee Correctional
)
Postal/Mailroom Staff; Associate Warden )
J.J. Brooks, Jr.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

C/A NO. 0:13-2115-CMC-PJG

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On October 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part and
that Plaintiff’s motion to file unnotarized documents be terminated as moot. The Magistrate Judge
advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the
serious consequences if they failed to do so. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on October 22,
2014.
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
1

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).
After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the
applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections,
the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order. Plaintiff’s objections do
not specifically address the Report and Recommendation; rather, the objections are more in the vein
of argument relating to merits of Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is
granted as to any claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint which question the validity of Plaintiff’s
conviction or implicate the duration of his sentence. Defendants’ motion is denied as to Plaintiff’s
due process and court access claims. Plaintiff’s motion to file unnotarized documents is terminated
as moot.
This matter is re-referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for further pretrial
proceedings, including the issuance of a scheduling order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
November 3, 2014

2