Summary
explaining that, "[i]n an earlier case, Norris v. Patsy, 1994 WL 443456 (N.D. Cal., July 29, 1994), the court noted that, under Heck v. Humphrey ' judgment in favor of the plaintiff here would imply the invalidity of pending state criminal proceedings which have not already been invalidated; . . . therefore, any request for damages pertinent to said proceedings is premature and must be DISMISSED'"
Summary of this case from David v. BosticOpinion
C.A. No. 2:06-2128-TLW-RSC.
February 25, 2008
ORDER
The Plaintiff brought this pro se civil action against the Defendants, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed August 21, 2006 by United States Magistrate Judge Robert Carr, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In his Report, Magistrate Judge Carr recommends that the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Plaintiff has not objected to the Report.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, 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 light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report and has concluded that the Report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 5), and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.