Richard Vandale Clowney v. Greenville County, Letonya T. Simmons, Jonathan R....

Es SouTe.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION RICHARD VANDALE CLOWNEY, § Plaintiff, § § vs. § Civil Action No. 6:24-7241-MGL § GREENVILLE COUNTY, LETONYA T. § SIMMONS, JONATHAN R. HILL, SHERIFF § HOBART LEWIS, JOE KERNELL, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Plaintiff Richard Vandale Clowney filed this lawsuit pro se, alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He brings claims of malicious prosecution against Defendants Greenville County, Letonya T. Simmons, Jonathan R. Hill, Sheriff Hobart Lewis, and Joe Kernell (collectively, Defendants).

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (the Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court Clowney’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on January 15, 2025. Clowney filed Objections to the Report on February 3, 2025.

Clowney was arrested and charged in 2024 by Greenville County with numerous offenses under state law. At the time he filed his complaint, he was incarcerated and awaiting trial.

According to the Greenville County public index, all of his charges are still pending at this time.

This Court takes judicial notice of the state court records related to Clowney’s charges. See Fusaro v. Cogan, 930 F.3d 241, 245 n.1 (4th Cir. 2019) (“This Court takes judicial notice of the state court documents relating to Fusaro's prosecution, as the district court properly did.”).

The Magistrate Judge determined Clowney’s complaint should be dismissed because it is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), where the Supreme Court held a § 1983 claim fails if it would necessarily imply the plaintiff’s conviction was invalid, unless it is shown the conviction was subsequently reversed, invalidated, or otherwise called into question. 512 U.S. at 487-88.

The Magistrate Judge concluded Clowney’s charges were still pending and he “provided no factual allegations to show that he successfully challenged his conviction.” Report at 3.

Therefore, his “claims for damages associated with an allegedly unlawful arrest or imprisonment are barred at this time by the holding in Heck.” Report at 4.

Clowney objects to the Report and argues the Magistrate Judge who signed his arrest warrant merely “rubber stamp[ed]” it. Objections at 3. Additionally, he argues the state magistrate judge was not “neutral and detached from law enforcement activities.” Id. Both arguments fail because, if Clowney is correct, his convictions would necessarily be invalid. Therefore, his claims are barred under Heck because his charges are still pending. The objections will be overruled.

To the extent Clowney objects to the Report because he asserts other violations of the Constitution, his objections will be overruled because those potential claims are also barred by Heck.

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Clowney’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. His complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 4th day of May 2026, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Clowney is hereby notified of his right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.