You're viewing Docket Item 28 from the case Manick v. Gary et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:

8:13-cv-00297-JMC Date Filed 07/10/13 Entry Number 28 Page 1 of 4



Civil Action No. 8:13-00297-JMC





Marcus Antwan Manick,





Tony Gary; Greenwood City Police
Department; Greenwood County Detention )



This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 17], filed on March 6, 2013, recommending that

Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] in the above-captioned case be dismissed without prejudice.

For the reasons stated herein, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint [Id.] without prejudice.


The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(2009), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(b) and (e) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a

recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The

responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423

U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those

portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with

instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection,” however,

“a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there


8:13-cv-00297-JMC Date Filed 07/10/13 Entry Number 28 Page 2 of 4

is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v.

Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 72

advisory committee’s note).

Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. [Dkt. No. 17 at 8].

Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report on March 27, 2013. [Dkt. No. 26].

Objections to the Report must be specific. Failure to file specific written objections to

the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District

Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

151 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727

F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Report, 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). In order to warrant de novo review,

Plaintiff’s objections must do more than merely restate his or her claims.


Upon review of Plaintiff’s objections to the Report, the court finds that when construed

liberally, some of Plaintiff’s objections are specific. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007). However, these objections do not change the outcome of the Magistrate Judge’s

analysis. Plaintiff claims that he was convicted of “slapping [his wife],” but that this action was

not listed on his arrest warrant. [Dkt. No. 26 at 1]. Regardless of what was explicitly listed on

his arrest warrant, this warrant was still facially valid. [See Dkt. No. 26-1; see also Dkt. No. 17

at 4]. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim for illegal seizure or false arrest still fails. [See Dkt. No. 17 at 4].

Plaintiff further objects that he is not “waiting trial any longer on [this] case.” [Dkt. No.

26 at 1]. Because Plaintiff’s address has recently changed from the Greenwood County


8:13-cv-00297-JMC Date Filed 07/10/13 Entry Number 28 Page 3 of 4

Detention Center in Greenwood, SC, to the Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Correctional

Institution in Columbia, SC, [Dkt. Nos. 19, 22, 24], and because Plaintiff makes reference to a

trial transcript and a sentencing sheet, [Dkt. No. 26 at 1], the court assumes that he has plead

guilty in a sentencing hearing or has gone to trial. Although it appears that criminal proceedings

regarding this matter have terminated since the Report was filed, these proceedings have not

terminated in Plaintiff’s favor. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution still fails. [See

Dkt. No. 17 at 5.]

Despite the fact that criminal proceedings regarding this matter have apparently

terminated, federal abstention from Plaintiff’s criminal case remains appropriate. [Dkt. No. 17 at

6.] While ongoing, these proceedings did implicate the State of South Carolina’s interest in

administering its criminal justice system free from federal interference. [See id.] Moreover,

Plaintiff has not shown any narrow or extraordinary circumstances that would merit federal

intervention in this matter to release Plaintiff from imprisonment or to expunge his charge from

his record, nor has he claimed a lack of adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the

previous state proceedings. [See id. at 5-6.] Regardless, a request for release from imprisonment

must be presented in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, after state remedies have been

exhausted—not in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as Plaintiff has done here. [See id. at


Plaintiff's remaining objections are either mere restatements of previous claims or are

wholly unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report. Plaintiff’s objections regarding the

causes of action he has brought and the relief he has sought are restatements of claims originally

alleged in the Complaint. [Dkt. No. 26 at 1; Dkt. No. 17 at 3.] Plaintiff’s requests for “some

type of release on what [he is] currently doing time for;” that “this charge be expunged from


8:13-cv-00297-JMC Date Filed 07/10/13 Entry Number 28 Page 4 of 4

[his] record;” to have Mr. Gary “removed from the police force” and never “hired again by any

agency dealing with law enforcement;” and for “high authorites” to “make sure things are done

according to the book in the police department, Sheriff Office, and Detention Center” are

restatements of requests Plaintiff made previously in the Complaint. [Id.] (all spelling, grammar,

and capitalization are Plaintiff’s).

Plaintiff’s objection that “a warrant was never served on [his wife]” for “inflict[ing]

bodily harm to [him]” and his statement that he is “currently trying to retrieve [the] transcript of

[his] trial and [his] sentencing sheet” are wholly unrelated to the dispositive portions of the

Report. [Dkt. No. 26 at 1] (all grammar is Plaintiff’s). It should also be noted that if Plaintiff

wishes to pursue these matters, he must do so through the state court system.

The court also finds that the Report [Dkt. No. 17] provides an accurate summary of the

facts and correctly states the law in the instant case.


Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

[Dkt. No. 17]. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] in the above-

captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice.


United States District Judge

July 10, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina