Tomongo James William McCord v. Detective Kelly Freshman, Chief of Police Gregory G. Mullen, City of Charleston, Assistant Solicitor Debbie Herring-Lash, Assistant Solicitor Lauren Frierson, Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, Supervisory Officer John Doe/Jane Roe

Summary

The court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending partial summary dismissal of Plaintiff Tomongo James William McCord’s § 1983 action. The court dismisses claims against several defendants, including municipal and prosecutorial defendants, and dismisses claims relating to McCord’s 1999 convictions under Heck v. Humphrey. The remaining malicious prosecution claim concerning a 2018 charge is ordered served on Detective Kelly Freshman.

Holdings

1. When no timely objections are filed, the district court need not conduct de novo review and may accept the recommendation after satisfying itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
2. The complaint failed to allege specific facts showing that Mullen, Wilson, or Doe/Roe violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights, and those defendants were properly dismissed.
3. The supervisory-liability claims against the identified defendants failed because Plaintiff did not allege facts satisfying the elements required for supervisory liability under Fourth Circuit law.
4. Herring-Lash, Frierson, and Wilson were entitled to prosecutorial immunity because the claims against them were based on their participation in Plaintiff's criminal proceedings.
5. The municipal-liability claim against the City of Charleston failed because the complaint did not identify an official policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation.
6. Claims relating to Plaintiff's 1999 convictions were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because Plaintiff did not allege that the convictions had been invalidated and a favorable § 1983 determination would call their validity and sentences into question.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should adopt the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in the absence of objections after clear-error review.
2. Whether the complaint adequately alleged constitutional violations or supervisory liability against Mullen, Wilson, and Doe/Roe.
3. Whether Herring-Lash, Frierson, and Wilson were entitled to prosecutorial immunity.
4. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded municipal liability against the City of Charleston.
5. Whether claims relating to Plaintiff's 1999 convictions were barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
6. Whether the remaining malicious-prosecution claim against Detective Freshman should proceed to service.

Disposition

other