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 United States District Court for the District of South Carolina vacates its prior order and conducts a de novo review of the plaintiff’s objections to a Report and Recommendation recommending partial summary dismissal. The court dismisses claims against all defendants except Detective Kelly Freshman, dismisses claims relating to the plaintiff’s 1999 convictions under Heck v. Humphrey, and permits service of the remaining malicious prosecution claim concerning a 2018 charge against Freshman.

Holdings

1. The district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's recommendation because the recommendation has no presumptive weight; although untimely objections ordinarily require only clear-error review, the court elected to review the plaintiff's objections de novo.
2. The complaint failed to state a claim against Mullen, Wilson, or Doe/Roe because it alleged no specific facts showing that those defendants violated McCord's constitutional rights, and the supervisory-liability allegations did not satisfy the governing elements.
3. Herring-Lash, Frierson, and Wilson were entitled to prosecutorial immunity because the claims against them were based on their participation in McCord's criminal proceedings.
4. 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.
5. Claims relating to McCord's 1999 convictions were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because McCord did not allege that the convictions had been invalidated and a favorable judgment would question their validity or the validity of his sentences.
6. The complaint was permitted to proceed against Freshman on the malicious-prosecution claim concerning the 2018 first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor charge, and the complaint was to be served on Freshman.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should review the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation de novo despite the plaintiff's untimely objections.
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 for conduct connected to the plaintiff's criminal proceedings.
4. Whether the complaint adequately alleged municipal liability against the City of Charleston.
5. Whether claims relating to the plaintiff's 1999 convictions were barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
6. Whether the remaining malicious-prosecution claim concerning the 2018 charge should proceed against Freshman.

Disposition

other