Timmons v. Davis

Filing 37

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report (DE 19 ) 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. 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.
Tyesha Davis,
Defendant.

Case No.: 4:24-cv-638-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 19.) Plaintiff Wondell Timmons, Jr. (“Plaintiff” or “Timmons”), who is proceeding
pro se, brought this action alleging Defendant Tyesha Davis (“Davis”) unlawfully had
him removed from the PDRTA bus “without a reasonable doubt and probable cause.”
(DE 1, p. 6.)
On March 28, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report recommending
Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed because, although Timmons indicates the Court has
jurisdiction over his claims pursuant to the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails to demonstrate complete diversity of parties, as Plaintiff alleges that

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

he and Defendant are citizens of South Carolina,” such that “Plaintiff has not shown
the court has diversity jurisdiction over his claims, therefore, his Complaint is subject
to summary dismissal.” (DE 19, p. 3.)
Timmons objected to the Report on April 9, 2024 (DE 21); 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).
Specifically, Plaintiff states:
I, the plaintiff Woodell Timmons Jr. is filing with ordering a Objection
with I, the plaintiff Wondell Timmons Jr. is with order of petition and
proposal is filing a order of objection with case name Timmons v. Davis
with the U.S. District Court of South Carolina. I, the plaintiff Wondell
Timmons Jr. is ordering and recommending with the U.S. District Court
of South Carolina to proceed with case name Timmons v. Davis to
appropriate get a judge decision with the U.S. District Court of South
Carolina court jurisdiction with the amount I, the plaintiff Wondell
Timmons Jr. have with the U.S. District Court of south Carolina ordered
with order of proposal with a petition I, the plaintiff Wondell Timmons
2

Jr. have on file with case name Timmons v. Davis with the U.S. District
Court of South Carolina. I, the plaintiff Wondell Timmons Jr. order of
objection with case name Timmons v. Davis, case number 4:24-cv-00638RBH KDW is recommended.
(DE 21, p. 1.) However, nowhere in Timmons’s objection does he address jurisdiction,
the basis for the Report’s recommendation of dismissal.

Therefore, the Court

overrules the objection. Accordingly, after thoroughly reviewing the Report and
Recommendation and the record, the Court adopts the Report (DE 19) 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph Dawson, III
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
September 25, 2024

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.

3