Timmons v. Cox

Filing 25

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report (DE 17 ) 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.
Liam E. Cox,
Defendant.

Case No.: 4:24-cv-3894-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 17.) Plaintiff Wondell Timmons, Jr. (“Plaintiff” or “Timmons”), who is proceeding
pro se, brought this action alleging a violation of his civil rights by Defendant Liam
E. Cox (“Cox”). (DE 1.)
Plaintiff alleges on June 6, 2024, Cox filed false address information on a
Mullins Police Department incident report. (DE 1, p. 5.) Plaintiff claims he has a
beginner’s permit that lists his correct address, and Cox did not use the address listed
on this document when he completed the incident report. (DE 1-1, p. 2.) Plaintiff
attaches a copy of a June 5, 2024, incident report in which Cox responded to 346

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

Gause Street in reference to stolen property. (Id. at 5.) Cox spoke with Plaintiff who
reported that his bicycle was missing from his front porch. (Id.) Cox took the report
and informed Plaintiff he would review the security camera in an attempt to identify
a suspect. (Id.)
On August 2, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report recommending
Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed because, although Plaintiff 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 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 17, p. 4.)
Timmons objected to the Report on August 13, 2024 (DE 20); 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

2

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 case name Timmons v. Floyd. Based upon the false information
with a false address PVT. Liam E. Cox has filed with a Mullins Police
Department Incident Report that I, the plaintiff Woodell Timmons Jr.
has filed with the U.S. District Court of South Carolina with case name
Timmons v. Cox, with a copy of I, the plaintiff Woodell Timmons Jr.
Beginner's Permit that has I, the plaintiff Woodell Timmons Jr. correct
address that PVT. Liam E. Cox did not filed with I, the Complainant
Woodell Timmons Jr. address with the Mullins Police Department
Incident Report document that I, the plaintiff Woodell Timmons Jr. has
filed with case name Timmons v. Cox , therefore I, the plaintiff Woodell
Timmons Jr. has based upon facts and evidence with documents I, the
plaintiff Woodell Timmons Jr. has filed with the case name Timmons v.
Cox with the U.S. District Court of South Carolina, I, the plaintiff
Woodell Timmons Jr. have a reasonable doubt to believe that PVT. Liam
E. Cox has filed false information with a false address with I, the
plaintiff Woodell Timmons Jr. complaint. Based upon the documents I,
the plaintiff Woodell Timmons Jr. has filed with the U.S. District Court
of South Carolina with case name Timmons v. Cox, I, the plaintiff
Woodell Timmons Jr. is filing with ordering a two billion dollar False
Information Lawsuit Settlement with compensation to pay I, the
plaintiff Woodell Timmons Jr. with a U.S. Constitutional U.S. District
Court of South Carolina Judge to rule in I, the plaintiff Wondell
Timmons Jr. favor with a decision.
(DE 20, p. 2.) 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 17) and
incorporates it here by reference.

3

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

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