Opinion
CV 110-098.
October 22, 2010
ORDER
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R R"), to which objections have been filed. While Plaintiff makes clear that he is objecting to the R R, the bulk of his objections consist of recitations of the allegations set forth in his complaint and legal doctrines that bear no relation to the Magistrate Judge's basis for recommending dismissal. His objections do not call into question the impropriety of his claim under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87. Furthermore, though Plaintiff appears to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling in response to the Magistrate Judge's determination that his claims are time barred (doc. no. 14-3, p. 17), he fails to show the type of "extraordinary circumstances" that would warrant tolling the statute of limitations due to his pending state habeas petition. See Salas v. Pierce, 297 F. App'x 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2008) ( per curiam) (finding plaintiff's pending habeas petition did not justify tolling statute of limitations in § 1983 action).
In conjunction with his objections to the R R, Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint a special master and a motion for summary judgment. All three of these documents have been docketed as a single filing (doc. no. 14), but because they constitute distinct requests for action, the Court will refer to the motion to appoint a special master as doc. no. 14-1, the motion for summary judgment as doc. no. 14-2, and the objections to the R R as doc. no. 14-3.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (doc. no. 9) is MOOT, his complaint is DISMISSED, and this civil action is CLOSED.
Because Plaintiff's case is dismissed, his motion to appoint a special master (doc. no. 14-1) and motion for summary judgement (doc. no. 14-2) are DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 2010, at Augusta, Georgia.