Opinion
4:24-cv-638-JD-KDW
09-25-2024
Wondell Timmons, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Tyesha Davis, Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION
Joseph Dawson, III United States District Judge
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.(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.)
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).
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 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
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-00638-RBH 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.