Robertson v. Englaton et al

Filing 14

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 9 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/14/2017. (gpre, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Shaheem Robertson, #329015, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Warden Englaton; Disciplinary Officer ) Edward Bittinger; Officer Evans, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) C/A No. 8:17-1763-JFA-JDA ORDER The pro se plaintiff, Shaheem Robertson, is an inmate at the Evans Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 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 August 1, 2017. However, 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 plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. In the 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 correctly opines that under the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), plaintiff’s claims are 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. 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. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 14, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?