Workman v. Metro PCS Mobile Phone Company et al

Filing 72

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 66 . The Court ADOPTS the R & R [ECF No. 66], LIFTS the stay, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims for monetary damages against Defendant Richardson and against Defendant Lewis in his individual capacity without prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 12/27/2018. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Olandio Ray Workman,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Mr. Richardson and Mr. Lewis,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 6:17-cv-01208-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of Plaintiff Olandio Ray Workman’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, who
recommends lifting the Court’s prior stay and dismissing Plaintiff’s remaining claims. See ECF Nos.
66 & 70.
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
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); Fed. R. Civ. 72(b).
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).
Discussion1
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when he was a state
pretrial detainee and awaiting trial on several criminal charges. He alleged, inter alia, that he was
arrested and imprisoned because Defendant Richardson (the registered agent of Metro PCS Mobile
Phone Company) and Defendant Lewis (the sheriff of Greenville County) unlawfully traced his cell
phone without a search warrant. The Court previously dismissed all claims2 except for Plaintiff’s
claims for monetary damages against Defendant Richardson and against Defendant Lewis in his
individual capacity; as for these claims, the Court stayed them until the conclusion of Plaintiff’s
criminal proceedings and ordered him to notify the Court when his state criminal proceedings had
concluded.3 See ECF No. 53.
Plaintiff has now filed a status report showing he proceeded to trial, was convicted of three
charges (kidnapping, domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature, and possession of a weapon
during the commission of a violent crime), and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. See ECF
1

The R & R thoroughly summarizes the procedural and factual history of this case, as well as the applicable
legal standards.
2

The Court also dismissed two other defendants, Metro PCS Mobile Phone Company and the Greenville
County Sheriff’s Office.
3

This stay was based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). See Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237, 248
(4th Cir. 2006) (“State criminal proceedings do not, however, allow for claims of money damages by criminal
defendants—such a claim is simply not available. Therefore, a ‘District Court has no discretion to dismiss rather than
to stay claims for monetary relief that cannot be redressed in the state proceeding.’” (quoting Deakins v. Monaghan,
484 U.S. 193, 202 (1988))).

2

No. 63-1. The Magistrate Judge recommends lifting the stay and dismissing Plaintiff’s pending claims
pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, wherein the Supreme Court ruled:
We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm
caused by actions 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
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, 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.
512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) (internal footnote omitted).
In his objections, Plaintiff asserts the Court should continue staying this case until the
conclusion of his direct appeal in state court and any potential post-conviction relief and/or federal
habeas corpus proceedings. See ECF No. 70. However, “Heck . . . bars a prisoner’s § 1983 claim if the
relief sought necessarily implies the invalidity of his criminal judgment.” Young v. Nickols, 413 F.3d
416, 417 (4th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has been convicted and sentenced in state court, and as explained
in the R & R, his claims for damages against Defendants Richardson and Lewis would necessarily imply
the invalidity of that criminal judgment.4 Accordingly, Heck bars Plaintiff’s claims for monetary

4

As explained in the Court’s prior order, upon reviewing Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge
sent Plaintiff special interrogatories asking him, “Were you arrested and imprisoned due to Mr. Richardson of Metro
PCS Mobile aiding Mr. Lewis of the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office to locate you by tracing your cell phone?”,
and Plaintiff answered in the affirmative and listed the charges—including kidnapping, domestic violence of a high
and aggravated nature, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime—of which he was
subsequently convicted. See ECF Nos. 38 & 41. Heck thus bars Plaintiff’s claims because success on them “would
necessarily imply invalidity of his conviction[s].” Ballenger v. Owens, 352 F.3d 842, 847 (4th Cir. 2003).

3

damages against Defendant Richardson and against Defendant Lewis in his individual capacity, and the
Court will dismiss those claims without prejudice. See, e.g., Ballenger, 352 F.3d at 847 (“Because
Ballenger’s post-conviction proceedings are still pending, the district court appropriately dismissed
Ballenger’s § 1983 suit without prejudice.”); Russell v. Guilford Cty. Municipality, 599 F. App’x 65
(4th Cir. 2015) (indicating a dismissal based on Heck should be without prejudice); Poston v. Conrad,
580 F. App’x 180 (4th Cir. 2014) (same).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R & R [ECF No. 66], LIFTS the stay, and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendant Richardson and against
Defendant Lewis in his individual capacity without prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close
this case.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
December 27, 2018

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

5

As the Magistrate Judge explains, Plaintiff was previously given an opportunity to amend his complaint.
See generally Goode v. Cent. Virginia Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993).

4