Timmons v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al
ORDER overruling Plaintiff's objections and ADOPTING 5 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff is denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. This case stands CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/25/2017. (pts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:17-cv-66
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated May 17, 2017, (doc. 5). In his Objections, Plaintiff asserts that he filled
out his Complaint "months before" he filed it with the Court. (Doc. 6, p. 2.) Even if this
assertion is true, however, Plaintiff did not disclose the existence of at least one of his
previously-filed causes of action. CompL, Timmons v. Reid, et al., 6:16-cv-58 (S.D. Ga. May
24, 2016), ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs complaint in Case Number 6:16-cv-58 was filed nearly a year
prior to the filing of his undated Complaint in this case, and Plaintiff should have disclosed this
previous filing in his Complaint in the instant cause of action. He did not do so, and this Court
cannot ignore Plaintiffs lack of candor—despite how unintentional his lack of candor may have
Thus, after an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs
with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and OVERRULES Plaintiffs
Objections. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint based on his lack of candor and
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this
case. The Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to proceed informa pauperis on appeal.
SO ORDERED, this ^<$cfav ofJuly, 2017.
J. RANBA^HALL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED^STATES DISTRICT COURT
iRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?