Al-Mujahidin v. Harris et al

Filing 140

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 119 Motion for Summary Judgment; and this case is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/27/2015.(cwhi, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Muhammad Al-Mujahidin,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
J. Harris, Sharonda Sutton, Percy Jones, )
Warden Stevenson, Leroy Cartledge,
)
Sgt. Esterline, Ofc. Beckett and Joe
)
Fant,
)
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 9:13-22-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Muhammad A.-Mujahidin (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 against the defendants J. Harris, Sharonda
Sutton, Percy Jones, Warden Stevenson, Leroy Cartledge, Sgt. Esterline, Ofc. Beckett and
Joe Fant (“the defendants”) alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the defendants.
(Am. Compl., ECF No. 38.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02,
D.S.C., the within action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant
for pretrial handling and a Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter and the court
incorporates them without recitation.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff filed this action against the defendants alleging inter alia excessive force
and conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights. On July 21, 2014, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 119) be granted, and this case be dismissed. (ECF No.
136.) On August 8, 2014, the plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation.

(ECF No. 138.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71, 96 S. Ct.
549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) 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 with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the court need not conduct a de novo review when a party
makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific
error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,
687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the
Magistrate Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 138) to the Magistrate Judge's
Report. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the plaintiff’s objections and finds them to be
without merit. The plaintiff is correct that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994) does not categorically require that a criminal conviction be overturned
for a plaintiff to recover under § 1983.

In support of his claim, the plaintiff cites the

following passage from the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, N.C.,

-2-

85 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 1996):
Heck did not purport to address the accrual of a § 1983 cause of action for
damages resulting from actions that would not implicate the validity of a
conviction or sentence. And, a charge that probable cause for a warrantless
arrest was lacking, and thus that the seizure was unconstitutional, would not
necessarily implicate the validity of a subsequently obtained conviction—at
least in the usual case.
In this case, however, a finding in favor of the plaintiff would “implicate the validity of [his]
conviction or sentence.”

As the Magistrate correctly noted, “if Plaintiff were to be

successful on his excessive force claim, it would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
assault and battery conviction because the two are ‘inextricably intertwined’.”

The

Magistrate Judge clearly distinguished the situation at hand from cases such as Brooks,
and the plaintiff has not offered any compelling argument in response.
The plaintiff’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive and warrant no further
discussion. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and adopts the Report and
Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court overrules the plaintiffs’ objections and
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, The defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 119) is GRANTED,
and this case is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 27, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

-3-