Timmons v. Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority

Filing 18

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report (DE 13 ) 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.
Grand Strand Water and Sewer
Authority,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 4:24-cv-4528-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 13.) Plaintiff Wondell Timmons, Jr. (“Plaintiff” or “Timmons”), who is proceeding
pro se, brought this action alleging a violation of his civil rights by Defendant Grand
Strand Water and Sewer Authority (“Defendant”). (DE 1.)
Plaintiff

alleges

Defendant

exposed

him

to

perfluoroalkyl

substances/contaminates in the water when he showered, washed laundry, washed
dishes, and prepared his food. (DE 1-1, p. 1.) Plaintiff says he dialed 911 on July 11,
2024, and made a verbal report to the Mullins Police Department concerning this
chemical exposure. (Id.)

Plaintiff states he informed the responding officer he

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

believed the water caused him to be sick after seeing a North Carolina news story.
(Id.) Plaintiff states he was transported to the emergency room by EMS and he was
prescribed Zyrtec for diagnosis: exposure to chemical inhalation. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks
two billion dollars in damages. (Id. at 2.)
On August 27, 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 13, pp. 3-4.)
Timmons objected to the Report on September 3, 2024 (DE 15); 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 Wondell Timmons Jr. is with order of petition and
proposal filing with ordering a objection with the case name Timmons v.
Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority to proceed with the U.S.
District Court of South Carolina with a U.S. District Court of South
Carolina Judge to rule in I, the plaintiff Wondell Timmons Jr. favor with
I, the plaintiff Wondell Timmons Jr. Two Billion Dollar Per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances Exposure with Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
Substances chemical Inhalation with Grand Strand Water and Sewer
Authority Lawsuit settlement with Compensation Order v. defendant
Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority based upon the documents I,
the plaintiff Wondell Timmons Jr. has filed with the U.S. District Court
of South Carolina with the Case name Timmons v. Grand Strand Water
and Sewer Authority.
(DE 15, 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 13) 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