Scott v. Dutch Fork Magistrate
3:19-cv-00909
D.S.C.Jun 7, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Maceo S. Scott, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on March 26, 2019, alleging constitutional violations by two defendants.
- Defendants named: "Dutch Fork Magistrate" (an entity) and Magistrate Judge Melvin Wayne Maurer.
- Magistrate Judge granted Scott leave to amend; Scott instead filed a letter reiterating his claims.
- Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending dismissal without prejudice and without issuance or service of process.
- Recommended bases for dismissal: Judge Maurer entitled to judicial absolute immunity; "Dutch Fork Magistrate" is not a "person" under § 1983; claims attacking conviction/sentence barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
- No party timely objected to the Report; district court conducted de novo review for clear error and adopted the Report, dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Maurer is liable under § 1983 for actions taken in judicial capacity | Scott asserted constitutional violations by Judge Maurer | Judicial acts are protected by absolute judicial immunity | Judge Maurer entitled to absolute immunity; claims dismissed as to him |
| Whether "Dutch Fork Magistrate" is a person under § 1983 | Scott sued the office/entity as a defendant | The named entity is not a "person" under § 1983 | Dismissed because the defendant is not a cognizable § 1983 person |
| Whether claims attacking conviction or sentence are cognizable in § 1983 | Scott sought relief tied to his conviction/sentence | Such claims are barred unless conviction reversed per Heck v. Humphrey | Claims precluded by Heck and therefore dismissed |
| Whether the Report should be adopted absent objections | Scott filed a letter but no formal objection; no party objected | Magistrate procedures allow adoption if no clear error | Court found no clear error and accepted the Report; dismissed complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (standards for district court review of magistrate recommendations)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (civil suit challenging validity of conviction or sentence barred unless conviction reversed)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (adoption of magistrate report without explanation when no objections)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (district court reviews magistrate recommendations for clear error if no objections)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to file objections to magistrate report forfeits right to appeal)
- United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984) (procedural consequences of failing to raise specific objections to magistrate report)