Barton v. Brown et al

Filing 13

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 9 Report and Recommendation, dismissing action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 10/4/2013. (jpet, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jerman O. Barton,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Angela Brown, Disciplinary Officer;
)
Michael Lawrence, Lieutenant; Wayne C.
)
McCabe, Warden,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 1:13-2380-JFA-SVH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Jerman O. Barton, is an inmate at the Lieber Correctional
Institution. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that the defendants
have violated his due process rights in connection with a prison disciplinary hearing.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the complaint should be summarily dismissed. The Report
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on September 13, 2013. However, the
1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02. 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. Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

plaintiff failed to file objections and the deadline within which to do so has expired. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge opines that under the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), plaintiff’s claim for damages is barred where
success of the action would implicitly question the validity of the conviction or duration of
the sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has been
successfully challenged.

The Supreme Court also extended the holding in Heck to a

prisoner’s claim for damages regarding loss of good time credits, as the plaintiff contends
here. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749,
751 (2004). Moreover, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that his institutional conviction
has been reversed, expunged, or declared invalid by a state court, and no federal writ has
been issued. Thus, plaintiff’s § 1983 due process claim is barred by the holdings of Heck and
Edwards.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report
and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is
adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 4, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3