(“Although Plaintiff's complaint alleges federal constitutional claims, the complaint must be dismissed pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because there is no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction since the complaint challenges the Supreme Court of South Carolina's decision . . .”); Wise v. Toal, No. C/A No. 6:09-cv-00495-HFF, 2009 WL 1606498, at *2 (D.S.C. June 8, 2009) (“Plaintiff filed this action in federal court after the judgment was rendered against him in state court.

Scott v. Frankel, No. 14-14262, 606 F. App'x 529, 532 n.4 (11th Cir. 2015); see also Grant v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-1547-RWS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51031, at *10-11 (N.D. Ga. May 20, 2009). Nelson v. Levy Ctr., LLC, No. 9:11-1184-SB-BHH, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44888, at *20 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2016); Wise v. Toal, No. 6:09-00495-HFF-WMC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49848, at *3-4 (D.S.C. June 8, 2009); Patterson v. AutoZone Auto Parts, Inc., No. 0:10-2438-MBS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10727, at *15-17 (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2011). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not definitively weighed in on this debate, though it has discussed the exception in dicta and in nonprecedential opinions.

The Fourth Circuit has thus far not recognized such an exception, and the District of South Carolina, the only court in this circuit that appears to have considered the issue, has declined to do so. See Patterson v. Autozone Auto Parts, Inc., Civ. A. No. 0:10-2438, 2011 WL 379427, at *5 (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2011); Wise v. Toal, Civ. A. No. 6:09-00495, 2009 WL 1606498, at *3-4 (D.S.C. June 8, 2009); see also Steven N. Baker, The Fraud Exception to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: How It Almost Wasn't (And Probably Shouldn't Be), 5 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 139, 160-61 (2011) (surveying the existence of a fraud exception to Rooker-Feldman and noting that the Fourth Circuit has yet to recognize the exception). This court declines to recognize the exception in the first instance.

The bar in Heck still fully applies to Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated and has post-conviction avenues available for challenging his conviction and sentence. See Wise v. Toal, No. 6:09cv00495, 2009 WL 1606498, at *5 n. 5 (D.S.C. June 8, 2009).B. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment