Buckner v. Rock Hill Police Department et al
Filing
122
ORDER accepting the 107 Report and Recommendation, overruling objections, denying as moot the remaining outstanding 93 , 116 , 119 , 120 motions and dismissing the 1 complaint without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Terry L. Wooten on 5/9/2022. (lbak)
0:20-cv-03253-TLW
Date Filed 05/09/22
Entry Number 122
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bruce Allen Buckner,
Case No. 0:20-cv-3253-TLW
PLAINTIFF
v.
RHPD Sergeant Castro, RHPD Officer
Kunde, RHPD Officer Andrew Hem,
RHPD Officer Terry Sanders, RHPD
Officer Robin Gander, each in his/her
individual and official capacities,
Order
DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff Allen Buckner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights due to actions taken by Defendants on January
16, 2020, when they entered Plaintiff’s hotel room, performed a search, and arrested
him. ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (Report) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case was
assigned. ECF No. 107.
In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the Complaint be
dismissed on grounds that Plaintiff’s claims for damages related to his arrest and
prosecution are barred by the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Heck Court stated the following:
We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983
plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed
on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a
state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28
0:20-cv-03253-TLW
Date Filed 05/09/22
Entry Number 122
Page 2 of 3
U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a
conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable
under § 1983.
Id. at 486–87.
On November 1, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an order directing Plaintiff
to show cause by November 22, 2021, why Plaintiff’s claims should not be dismissed
as barred by Heck. ECF No. 100. Plaintiff failed to take the opportunity given to him
to respond to the magistrate judge’s order, ECF No. 100, at which point the
magistrate judge issued the Report. Plaintiff then filed objections, but again failed to
provide any reason this case is not barred by Heck. ECF No. 110. This matter is now
ripe for decision.
In reviewing the Report, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to
which any party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound
by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains
responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other
standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections
are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review
of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify
any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo,
the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report and the objections,
for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, particularly Plaintiff’s failure to follow
0:20-cv-03253-TLW
Date Filed 05/09/22
Entry Number 122
Page 3 of 3
the magistrate judge’s order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this case should
not be dismissed as barred by Heck, the Report is ACCEPTED. His objections are
OVERRULED. His Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
May 9, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina
1
The remaining outstanding motions, ECF Nos. 93, 116, 119, and 120 are hereby denied as moot.
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?