You're viewing Docket Item 25 from the case Dukes v. Brown et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




4:12-cv-02505-JFA Date Filed 06/04/13 Entry Number 25 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Michael Andre Dukes, Sr.,

) C/A No.: 4:12-2505-JFA-PJG



ORDER

Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________________________________ )

James E. Brown; Ray Atwood; The County
of Horry; Paul Archer; J. Gregory Hembree;
and George Debusk,

Defendants.

The pro se plaintiff, Michael Dukes, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, alleging that he was falsely arrested and illegally convicted. He seeks release

from incarceration and monetary damages.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and

1

Recommendation wherein she suggests that the complaint is subject to summary

dismissal. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this

matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and

Recommendation. He filed an objection memorandum which appears to restate the

claims contained in his original complaint without specifically addressing the Report and

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
1
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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

4:12-cv-02505-JFA Date Filed 06/04/13 Entry Number 25 Page 2 of 2

Recommendation. The court has conducted the required de novo review of the objections

and finds them to be without merit.

As the Magistrate Judge correctly opines, the plaintiff has made no allegation that

his conviction or sentence has been invalidated, thus, under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1997), the plaintiff’s claim for damages is not cognizable. The Magistrate Judge

also notes that previously the plaintiff has unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court (C/A No. 0:11-819-JFA-PJG).



After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and

Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation to be proper and incorporates the Report herein by reference.

The plaintiff’s motions to amend or correct his complaint (ECF Nos. 11, 15, 23)

and motion for a hearing (17) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 4, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2