Waters v. Stewart et al

Filing 84

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court overrules Plaintiff's objection and adopts and incorporates the R & R (ECF No. 11 ) by reference. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Townsend is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 07/18/2016. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Thomas Bradford Waters,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Lake City Police Ofc. John Stewart, Lake )
City Police Ofc. Mark Strickland, Lake City )
Police Ofc. Sgt. Anthony Backhuss, Lake )
City Police Ofc. Jody Cooper, and ATF
)
Agent Alan C. Townsend,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-04143-RBH-TER

ORDER

Plaintiff Thomas Bradford Waters, a prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action by
filing a complaint pursuant to both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against the above-named Defendants alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. See ECF No. 1. The matter is now before the Court for review
of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III,
who recommends summarily dismissing Defendant ATF Agent Alan C. Townsend from this case.1 See
R & R, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has filed a timely objection to the R & R. See ECF No. 18.
Standard of Review
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was referred
to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the
screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe
the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). But see Beaudett v. City
of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (“Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints
are not, however, without limits. Gordon directs district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally. It does not
require those courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.”).

remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a
de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the
matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report
to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when
a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific error
in the [M]agistrate [Judge]’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews only for
clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the Court
need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
Discussion
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Townsend gave perjured testimony in front of a
federal grand jury, thereby depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.2 ECF No. 1 at 7-8. The
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court summarily dismiss the complaint as to Defendant
Townsend because Plaintiff’s claims against him are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
R & R at 5. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, arguing he does not believe
he is collaterally attacking his conviction by alleging Defendant Townsend committed perjury. See ECF
No. 18.

2

Plaintiff states in his complaint that he seeks “monetary, punitive, and actual damages in the sum of
500,000.00” dollars. ECF No. 1 at 13.

2

In Heck, the Supreme Court held that to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction invalid, a plaintiff bringing a § 1983 claim must establish that the conviction or sentence has
been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid.3 512 U.S. at 487 (1994). In this case, a federal
jury found Plaintiff guilty of being a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm. See R & R at 4 n.3
(taking judicial notice of the district court records from Plaintiff’s criminal case). The Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that Heck bars Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendant
Townsend because success on them would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction and
sentence (i.e., that perjured testimony led to his indictment and subsequent conviction), which have not
been overturned or otherwise called into question. See Young v. Nickols, 413 F.3d 416, 417 (4th Cir.
2005) (“Heck . . . bars a prisoner’s § 1983 claim if the relief sought necessarily implies the invalidity
of his criminal judgment.”). Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection.
The Court has reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff’s complaint, the Magistrate Judge’s
R & R, and Plaintiff’s objection, and the Court has applied the relevant law. The Court has conducted
a de novo review of the R & R and finds no merit in Plaintiff’s objection. For the reasons stated in this
Order and in the Magistrate Judge’s R & R, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and adopts and
incorporates the R & R [ECF No. 11] by reference. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant
Townsend is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

The rule in Heck applies to both § 1983 actions and Bivens actions. See Mobley v. Tompkins, 473 F. App’x
337, 337 (4th Cir. 2012).

3

Florence, South Carolina
July 18, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

4