Case Information
*1 3:24-cv-07157-RMG-PJG Date Filed 03/11/25 Entry Number 26 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Rice, Case No. 3:24-cv-7157-RMG Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND OPINION Reynolds, et al. , Defendants.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate Judge recommending summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s action. (Dkt. No. 20). No objections were filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R as the Order of the Court and dismisses Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
I. Introduction Plaintiff is detained in state prison awaiting trial on charges of shoplifting, petit larceny,
and public disorderly conduct. (Dkt. No. 20 at 1). He brings this suit against a private security guard at a convenience store, his arresting officer, a state prosecutor and two municipal judges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking actual and punitive damages. (Dkt. No. 1).
II. Legal Standard The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber , 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only 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 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
1 *2 3:24-cv-07157-RMG-PJG Date Filed 03/11/25 Entry Number 26 Page 2 of 2 § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the Report for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. , 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
III. Discussion The Magistrate Judge ably found that Plaintiff has failed to state any viable claim under
§ 1983. Defendant Lipscomb is a private security guard, not a state actor, and cannot be sued under § 1983. (Dkt. No. 20 at 4). Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Reynolds fails under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994) because he seeks to challenge the constitutionality of his arrest and detention. ( Id. at 4-5). Defendant Burn is entitled to prosecutorial immunity and Defendants White and Lipson are entitled to judicial immunity. ( Id. at 5-6). Finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R as the Order of the Court.
IV. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s claims are summarily DISMISSED without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process. AND IT IS SO ORDERED . _s/ Richard M. Gergel_ Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge
March 11, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina
2