Robertson v. Englaton et al
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, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Shaheem Robertson, #329015,
Warden Englaton; Disciplinary Officer
Edward Bittinger; Officer Evans,
C/A No. 8:17-1763-JFA-JDA
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
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).
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
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?