Gaddy v. South Carolina District Courts, The

Filing 32

ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/18/14. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy,

) C/A No.: 8:13-2387-JFA-JDA
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
The South Carolina District Court,
Defendant.
___________________________________

The pro se plaintiff, Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, is an inmate currently housed at the
Lieber Correctional Institution. He brings this action against the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina alleging bias and conflict of interest. Plaintiff
appears to seek recusal of this court and the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to
hear his case.
The Magistrate Judge has considered the present action as one against federal
officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971).1

The Magistrate Judge2 has prepared a thorough

1

In Bivens, the Supreme Court created a counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and authorized suits against federal employees
in their individual capacities. A Bivens claim is analogous to a claim under § 1983. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.
812–20 (1982).

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 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).

1

Report and Recommendation and opines that the court should summarily dismiss this
action. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation and he has timely done so. The court has conducted a de novo review
of the objections and finds them to be wholly without merit. As such, they are overruled.
The Magistrate Judge first notes that the United States District Court is a federal
governmental entity and it is not subject to a Bivens suit.

The plaintiff cannot seek

recusal of this court or other assigned judges where there has been no reasonable, factual
basis for recusal. Moreover, the judges of this court assigned to plaintiff’s pending and
prior cases are immune in a suit for damages or injunctive relief.
Finally, the Magistrate Judge opines that under the United States Supreme Court’s
ruling in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), plaintiff’s claim for damages relating
to his conviction for voluntary manslaughter in state court is barred where success of the
action would implicitly question the validity of the conviction or duration of the sentence,
unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has been successfully
challenged.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his conviction has been reversed,

expunged, or declared invalid by a state court, and no federal writ has been issued. Thus,
the action must be dismissed.

2

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report
and Recommendation, and the plaintiff’s objections thereto, this court finds the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and
applies the correct principles of law. The Report is adopted and incorporated herein by
reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 18, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3