Kirksey v. Greenville County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice (except for the claims barred by Heck) and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Jacquelyn D Austin on 3/6/25. (agig)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Shelton Andra Kirksey,
Plaintiff,
v.
Greenville County Sheriff’s Office;
Greenville County Court House;
Magistrate Judge James E. Hudson,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 6:24-cv-07308-JDA

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the
Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 13.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F.
McDonald for pre-trial proceedings.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 17, 2024. [Doc. 1.] On February 6, 2025,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending
that the matter be dismissed with prejudice, 1 without leave to amend, and without
issuance and service of process. [Doc. 13.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of
the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 7.] Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time
to do so has lapsed.

1 As

the Magistrate Judge noted, to the extent Plaintiff’s denial of due process and
improper arrest claims seek money damages from Defendants, such claims are barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and should be dismissed without prejudice.
[Doc. 13 at 3–5.]

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the
Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate
Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an
objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (stating that “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” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice (except for the claims barred by
Heck) and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States District Judge

March 6, 2025
Greenville, South Carolina

2

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3