Buckner v. Porter
Filing
31
ORDER accepting the 11 Report and Recommendation, overruling Plaintiff's objections, denying as moot the remaining outstanding 18 , 22 , 25 , 28 , 29 motions and dismissing the 1 complaint with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Terry L. Wooten on 5/6/2022. (lbak)
0:21-cv-03873-TLW
Date Filed 05/09/22
Entry Number 31
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bruce Allen Buckner,
Case No. 0:21-cv-3873-TLW
PLAINTIFF
v.
Order
York County Solicitor Daniel Porter,
DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff Allen Buckner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges
violations of his constitutional rights by York County Solicitor Daniel Porter
(“Defendant”). 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. 11. In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that the
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to prosecutorial immunity and Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R, but his
objections do not address the substance of the Report. See ECF No. 17. 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,
0:21-cv-03873-TLW
Date Filed 05/09/22
Entry Number 31
Page 2 of 2
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, the Report is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s
objections are OVERRULED.
His Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
May 6, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina
1
The remaining outstanding motions, ECF Nos. 18, 22, 25, 28, 29 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?