Goss v. South Carolina

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks dismissing complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/24/12.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~1C;:IV~,
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CA:ROIJINA """ ':
CHARLESTON DIVISION

'~':' ~'L

SC

10lZ APR 2W P 2: Oq
Darrell L. Goss,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of South Carolina,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 2:12-714-RMG

ORDER

--------------------------)
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking
declaratory relief and damages. Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at Lieber Correctional
Institution and files this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S,C. § 1915. Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC, this case was automatically
referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings. On April 3, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs Complaint
be dismissed based on its failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (Dkt. No.8).
The Magistrate Judge instructed Plaintiff of the deadline for filing objections to the Report and
Recommendation and the serious consequences for failing to do so. (Id. at 8). Notwithstanding
these instructions, Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. As
explained herein, the Court agrees with and wholly adopts the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge and dismisses Plaintiffs Complaint without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process.

Law!Analysis
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific

objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions."

Id.

Where, as in this case, the Plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error, see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and this Court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cif. 1983).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied certain constitutional rights at a
post-conviction relief hearing in May of2011 in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas.
(Dkt. No.1).

Plaintiff alleges that he lost meritorious claims and received an ''unlawful

conviction" as the result of the denial of constitutional rights. (Id.). Plaintiff brings the action
pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983 and requests damages in the amount of $1,000,000. (Id.). As
explained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs claims are barred
by the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held:
We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm 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 a determination, or
called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28
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. Thus,
2

------------..

...-~- - - -

when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must
consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has
already been invalidated.
Id. at 486-87. Thus, Plaintiff must take the appropriate steps to have his conviction overturned

or invalidated before seeking relief pursuant to § 1983 based on the allegedly unlawful
conviction. Further, Plaintiff has named only the State of South Carolina as a defendant in this
action. As explained in the Report and Recommendation, the Supreme Court has specifically
held that "neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are 'persons' under §
1983." Willv. Michigan Depl. ofState Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. I
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
April ]J-t, 2012
Charleston, South Carolina

To the extent Plaintiff alleges state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
I

3