Gaddy v. South Carolina Supreme Court's District of Columbia et al

Filing 15

ORDER Adopting 10 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 11/21/13. (kmca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, #323551,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina Supreme Court’s District of
)
Columbia, South Carolina; Jean H. Toal,
)
Chief Justice, Under Color of State Law,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 8:13-2541-JFA-JDA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Calvin Gaddy, is an inmate at the Perry Correctional Institution.
He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
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 plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on September 27, 2013. However, the
plaintiff failed to file objections and the deadline within which to do so has expired. In the
1

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

absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
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 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. Moreover, as 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, the action must be dismissed for failure to state a claim and his claim for monetary
damages under § 1983 is barred by Heck.
The Magistrate Judge also properly suggests that defendant Justice Toal is immune
from suit for her actions in the plaintiff’s appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief;
that plaintiff’s complaint is barred against the State of South Carolina by the Eleventh
Amendment; and that plaintiff’s claim of involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution is frivolous. This court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report
and Recommendation, 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.
2

Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 21, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3