Timmons v. Hartson

Filing 48

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report (DE 30 ) and incorporates it here by reference. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process and any pending motions are otherwise terminated as moot. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 9/25/2024. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Wondell Timmons, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lt. Mike Hartson,
Defendant.

Case No.: 4:24-cv-0598-JD-KDW

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina.1
(DE 30.) Plaintiff Wondell Timmons, Jr. (“Plaintiff” or “Timmons”), who is proceeding
pro se, brought this action alleging a violation of his civil rights by Defendant Lt.
Mike Hartson (“Hartson” or “Defendant”). (DE 22.)
Plaintiff alleges Hartson filed a false incident report charging Plaintiff with
disorderly conduct. (DE 22, p. 1.) Plaintiff claims Hartson has not shown proof or
evidence that Plaintiff was guilty of disorderly conduct “with a appropriate federal
court with a judge decision.” (Id.) In support of his claims, Plaintiff references
Incident Report 20233217. (Id.)

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber,
423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

On April 23, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report recommending
Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed because even “[c]onstruing Plaintiff’s allegations
as being brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, . . . Plaintiff has failed to allege
sufficient facts to establish constitutional wrongdoing or discriminatory actions
attributable to Lieutenant Hartson.” (DE 30, p. 3.) Further, “[a]lthough Plaintiff
alleges Lieutenant Hartson filed a false incident report, Plaintiff has not explained
why the incident report that was prepared by Lieutenant Hartson was false,” and
“Plaintiff has also not shown how he was allegedly injured by the filing of the false
incident report.” (Id.)
Timmons objected to the Report on May 6, 2024 (DE 33); however, to be
actionable, objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure
to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial
review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district
judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). “The
Supreme Court has expressly upheld the validity of such a waiver rule, explaining
that ‘the filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus
attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’
dispute.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (2005)
(citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (emphasis added)). In the absence of
specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

2

Specifically, Plaintiff states, “I, the plaintiff Wandell Timmons Jr. is ordering
with U.S. District Court of South Carolina to file a order of objection with case name
Timmons v. Hartson, case number 4:24-cv-00598-RBH-KDW, and order to proceed
with case name Timmons v. Hartson to get a decision with U.S. District Court of
South Carolina.” (DE 33, p. 1.) However, nowhere in Timmons’s objection does he
address the facts to establish constitutional wrongdoing or discriminatory actions
attributable to Hartson, why the incident report that was prepared by Hartson was
false, or how he was allegedly injured by the filing of the false incident report.
Therefore, the Court overrules the objection. Accordingly, after thoroughly reviewing
the Report and Recommendation and the record, the Court adopts the Report (DE 30)
and incorporates it here by reference.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process and any pending motions are
otherwise terminated as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph Dawson, III
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
September 25, 2024

3

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within
thirty (30) days from this date, under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

4