Lee v. Boone et al

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts and incorporates the R & R (ECF No. 9 ) by reference, DENIES Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (ECF No. 13 ), and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 04/03/2017. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Robert Lee,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Mr. Kenny Boone, F.C.S.O.; and
)
Mr. Wayne Bird, F.C.S.O,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-02988-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Robert Lee, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the two above-captioned Defendants. See ECF No. 1. The matter is before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South
Carolina.1 See R & R, ECF No. 9. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court summarily
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. R & R at
1, 6. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R & R as well as a motion to amend. See ECF Nos. 12 &
13.
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
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a
1

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.”).

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).
Discussion2
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges the Florence County Police Department arrested him on July
4, 2016, at 501 East Pine Street in Florence, South Carolina, questioned him at the Florence CityCounty Complex, and took him to the Darlington County Detention Center. See ECF No. 1 at 6-8. He
claims he has not been served with a warrant and requests the Court to grant the following relief: “order
the State to give me due process. Follow rules of law when probable cause hearing and warrant has
[sic] not been served within the required time[.]” Id. at 5-6, 9. The Magistrate Judge recommends
summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint because he fails to state a plausible claim against the two
named defendants: Kenny Boone (the sheriff of Florence County) and Wayne Byrd (the former sheriff

2

The R & R contains a full summary of the procedural and factual history of this case, as well as the
applicable legal standards.

2

of Darlington County). R & R at 3. Significantly, the Magistrate Judge takes judicial notice that the
Darlington County Public Index indicates that Plaintiff’s offenses arose in Darlington County for four
charges of forgery, value less than $10,000, and that bond was set at $10,000 for each charge by the
Honorable Daniel B. Causey, III (a municipal judge in Darlington).3 R & R at 4.
Plaintiff has filed objections to the R & R as well as a separate motion to amend his complaint.
See ECF Nos. 12 & 13. In these filings, he seeks to supplement the factual allegations in his complaint
and add two new defendants to this action. However, the Court notes the Darlington County Public
Index indicates that Plaintiff’s four forgery charges were disposed of on October 19, 2016, that he pled
guilty to each charge in the Court of General Sessions for Darlington County before the Honorable
Steven H. John, and that he received concurrent one-year prison sentences for three charges and timeserved credit for the fourth charge. See State of South Carolina v. Robert Lee, available at
http://publicindex.sccourts.org/Darlington/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx

(indictment

numbers

2016GS1601518, 2016GS1601519, 2016GS1601520, and 2016GS1601521). Additionally, after he
filed his objections and motion to amend, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating he
“went to court in Darlington County” in October 2016 and “was shipped to the Department of
Corrections” on October 24, 2016. See ECF No. 17.
Given Plaintiff’s criminal convictions, the Court finds the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars Plaintiff’s claims because success on them would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his forgery convictions and sentences, which have not been overturned or
otherwise called into question. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (explaining that

3

Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s consideration of the public records indicating his pending

charges.

3

under Heck and related cases, “a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no
matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state
conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action would
necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.
641, 646 (1997) (extending Heck to civil rights actions that do not directly challenge confinement, but
instead contest procedures which necessarily imply unlawful confinement); 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.”). Under Heck and its progeny, the Court cannot grant
Plaintiff the relief he seeks (i.e., ordering the State of South Carolina to give him due process and
finding an arrest warrant was not timely served).

See, e.g., Mayfield v. King, No. CA

0:10-1487-JFA-PJG, 2010 WL 4929124, at *1 (D.S.C. Nov. 30, 2010) (finding Heck barred Plaintiff’s
§ 1983 action alleging “that the defendants have violated his due process rights and that he has been
maliciously and falsely imprisoned”). Accordingly, the Court must overrule Plaintiff’s objections, deny
his motion to amend his complaint,4 and dismiss this action.
Conclusion
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff’s complaint, the R &
R, and Plaintiff’s objections and motion to amend. See ECF Nos. 1, 9, 12, & 13. For the reasons stated
in this Order and in the R & R, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts and incorporates the
R & R [ECF No. 9] by reference, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint [ECF No. 13],
and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

4

See Mayfield v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 379 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating a
court should deny a request to amend if amendment would be futile).

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
April 3, 2017

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

5