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