Tyler v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 16

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/22/2012.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Larry James Tyler,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of South Carolina;
County of Darlington,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.:

IYE!~

9:12-cv-260-R~bMAR 22 A II: 18

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, brings this
action alleging that his right to a fast and speedy trial has been violated and asserting that he
should be released. Plaintiffs Complaint does not specify whether he is pursuing a claim under
42 U.S.c. § 1983 1 or a petition for habeas corpus. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC, this case was automatically referred to the United
States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings. On February 22, 2012, the Magistrate issued
a Report and Recommendation finding that the Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and recommending that the Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

(Dkt. No. 12).

In the Report and

Recommendation, the Magistrate instructed Plaintiff of the deadline for filing objections to the
Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences for failing to do so.

(Jd. at 10).

Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation.

As

explained herein, the Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate,
adopts the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and dismisses Plaintiffs
Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
I

,--.'1. SC

The form used by Plaintiff is designed for complaints filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Law/Analysis
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific

objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions."

[d.

Where, as here, the Plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions may be reviewed only for clear error, see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and this Court is not required to give any explanation for

adopting the recommendation ofthe Magistrate. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee in Darlington Detention Center, states in his Complaint that
his claim is based on the fact that a "fast and speedy trial has not been given." (Dkt. No.1 at 2).
Plaintiff alleges that he has been arrested since September of 2011 and is set for a June 6, 2012
hearing in the State of South Carolina Municipal Court. (ld. at 3).2 Plaintiff requests that the
Court grant him a fast and speedy trial, release him, and return his property. (ld. at 4). As
thoroughly explained in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and must be summarily dismissed.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks a speedier release pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United
States Supreme Court has expressly held that a state prisoner is barred from pursuing such relief
2 The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff's state court proceedings. (See Dkt. No. 12 at 3 n.3
(Magistrate's Report and Recommendation discussing the status of Plaintiff's state court
proceedings and citing authority supporting the Court's decision to take judicial notice of such
proceedings)).
2

under this statute. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding that a state
prisoner may not pursue a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that the state prisoner's sole federal
remedy is a writ of habeas corpus, where "a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration
of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to
immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment").

Furthermore, Plaintiffs

Complaint is barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Under the Younger abstention doctrine,
a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings "except in the most
narrow and extraordinary circumstances." Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996).
As explained in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, Younger abstention is appropriate
in this case. See Brazell v. Boyd, 991 F.2d 787 (4th Cir. 1993) (Table) (holding that Younger
abstention was appropriate where a prisoner sought to raise a speedy trial claim because the
prisoner could raise the claim at trial and on direct appeal). Plaintiff may raise his concerns
regarding a fast and speedy trial in the state court proceedings.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
March 22..-,2012
Charleston, South Carolina

3