Joseph v. SC Supreme Court et al

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON 10 Report and Recommendation that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 8/9/13. (kmca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Marcus Albines Joseph, #147764,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SC Supreme Court Justices; Director
)
Department of Corrections; State of South
)
Carolina; Municipality of Manning; Clerk
)
Joseph W. Coker; Henry M. Turbeville;
)
Anelle C. Powell; Governor of Florida;
)
State and County of Port Charlotte; Ray
)
Chandler of Coffee, McKenzie & Chandler,
)
Attorneys at Law; Director Byars, Director at )
SCDC; and SLED.
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 8:12-2014-JFA-JDA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Marcus Albines Joseph, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.1 He is an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections serving a life
sentence for murder. His complaint raises various allegations of the constitutionality of the
South Carolina code under which he was convicted, as well as the validity of his conviction
and the judges’ jurisdiction over his case. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of
$80,000,000.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action2 has prepared a thorough Report and

1

The plaintiff has filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

2

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has

1

Recommendation and opines that the complaint should be summarily dismissed. The Report
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge opines that under the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), that plaintiff’s claims relating to his arrest,
indictment, guilty plea, conviction, and the constitutionality of South Carolina’s murder
statute are subject to summary dismissal because a right of action has not accrued.
Heck v. Humphrey, alone, is a sufficient ground to dismiss this action without
prejudice. Nevertheless, the Magistrate Judge’s Report goes further and discusses several
substantive reasons why the various claims asserted have no merit.
Plaintiff was apprised of his right to file objections to the Report and he filed timely
objections thereto. Despite its length, the objection memorandum in no way addresses the
legal principles on which the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this action. In
fact, the plaintiff’s memorandum does not even mention Heck or the other case law relied
upon by the Magistrate Judge. The objection memorandum merely reasserts and expands the
claims made in the underlying complaint.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and

no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2

Recommendation, and the petitioner’s objections thereto, the court finds the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation to be proper and incorporates the Report herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 9, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3