Straws v. Toal et al

Filing 14

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 8 ] is ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 1/13/2017. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jabbar Jomo Straws,

Case No. 3:15-cv-2562-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.

ORDER

Jean Toal and Alan Wilson,
DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff Jabbar Jomo Straws, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action asserting
various violations of due process related to his state conviction. 1 ECF No. 1. The matter now
comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge
West, to whom this case was assigned. ECF No. 8. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends
dismissing this case without prejudice and without service of process pursuant to Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R, ECF No. 10, and this
matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the R&R, 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, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's

1

Plaintiff asserts he is serving a 110-year state sentence after being convicted in 2006 by a jury
for armed robbery, kidnapping, assault and battery with intent to kill, and carrying a weapon during
the commission of a violent crime. ECF No. 1 at 3.
1

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 closely reviewed de novo the R&R,
Plaintiff’s objections, and the record in this case. After careful consideration, Plaintiff’s objections
are OVERRULED, and the R&R is ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate
Judge, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
January 13, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2