Baker v. Patton et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendation. It is ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 7/21/2014.(abuc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
) Civil Action No.1:14-cv-02136-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v.
)
Mr. Larry Ray Patton, Jr., Jonathan Howell, )
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
Terrance T. Baker,

Plaintiff Terrance T. Baker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner housed at the Broad River
Correctional Institution in Columbia, South Carolina. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis filed the instant action on June 3, 2014 pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking monetary
damages. (ECF No. 1.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, as well as applicable case precedents. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation on June 19, 2014 in which she recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 7.) The
Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s claim for damages is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). Additionally, the Magistrate Judge noted that the rationale in Heck has been
applied to parole and probation revocations. See Husketh v. Sills, 34 Fed. Appx. 104, 2011 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 96265, 2002 WL 924288 (4th Cir.2002).
The Magistrate Judge makes of only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation

has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are
made. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF
No. 7, at 6.) However, he has not done so and objections were due on July 7, 2014. 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005).
After a careful review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly,
the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated herein by
reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
July 21, 2014
Spartanburg, South Carolina

-2-