Hamilton v. Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Charleston County
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. Plaintiff's complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 5/30/2017.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) C/A No. 2:17-0921-MBS
OPINION AND ORDER
Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Charleston )
Plaintiff Edward Hamilton, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint on
April 10, 2017, alleging that he was arrested and his residence was searched without a warrant.
Plaintiff contends he has been in custody since September 22, 2016 and that his constitutional right
to a speedy trial has been violated. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking
immediate release from detention as well as money damages.
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 Mary Gordon Baker for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On May 3, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she determined that the court
should abstain from considering Plaintiff’s claims under Younger v. Harris, 401, U.S. 37, 43-44
(1971), which provides that the federal court should not interfere with state criminal proceedings
except in extraordinary circumstances not present here. The Magistrate Judge further noted that
Defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s claims for money
damages. The Magistrate Judge additionally found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief
because Defendant is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983 and because Plaintiff’s allegations are
conclusory. The Magistrate Judge observed that Plaintiff’s demand for release is not cognizable
under § 1983, but must be raised pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus. Finally, the Magistrate Judge
determined that Plaintiff’s claim for money damages is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the within action be summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff filed no
objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes 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). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs in the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff’s complaint is summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
May 30, 2017
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?