JONES v. CITY OF QUINCY

Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
RONALD D. JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:25cv367-AW-MAF
DEXTER GOLDWIRE, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this case on August 28, 2025.
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not initially pay the filing fee or file an in forma
pauperis motion, but an Order was entered directing him to do so. ECF
No. 3. That Order also required Plaintiff to show good cause why this case
should not be dismissed for submitting an incomplete and insufficient
complaint. 	Id.
In response, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, ECF No. 4, and
in forma pauperis motion, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff did not demonstrate good
cause, but he was subsequently granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 6. Furthermore, because his first amended complaint
Case 4:25-cv-00367-AW-MAF Document 12 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
remained insufficient, Plaintiff was given an opportunity to file a second
amended complaint if he believed there was a factual basis to proceed. 	Id.
The Order explained that Plaintiff had not shown that his constitutional
rights were violated and that none of his allegations supported a claim
against the City of Quincy. 	Id.
Plaintiff then filed a “statement of facts,” ECF No. 7, but he did not file
a proper complaint on the court form as required. Plaintiff was directed to
do so by December 4, 2025. ECF No. 8.
Plaintiff has now timely filed a second amended complaint, ECF No.
11, which has been reviewed. The title page of the complaint names
“Dexter Goldwire, et al.,” as Defendants. ECF No. 11 at 1. However, in
Section I of the complaint form, Plaintiff names the City of Quincy as the
only Defendant. 	Id. at 3. That is inconsistent and insufficient.
Moreover, within the body of the complaint, Plaintiff contends the
“only Defendant that is a ‘state actor’ is Commissioner Dr. Robin Wood.”
Id. at 4. Even if Plaintiff had properly listed Robin Wood as a Defendant at
some point within the complaint, Plaintiff does not present factual
allegations against that person to show that she violated his rights.
Case No. 4:25cv367-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00367-AW-MAF Document 12 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Plaintiff’s factual allegations describe an altercation between himself
and Daron Wood. 	Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff indicates that Mr. Wood blew leaves
out of his yard towards Plaintiff’s side of the road. 	Id. 	Plaintiff and
Mr. Wood exchanged words in a not-so-neighborly fashion. 	Id. at 5.
Plaintiff said when he asked Mr. Wood to stop blowing leaves, Mr. Wood
approached him, threatened him, and “assaulted Plaintiff with his blower!”
Id. at 6. Plaintiff called the police, but they “refused to take any action at
all!” 	Id. at 5. When Plaintiff complained to the Quincy city manager, he
was told to “submit it to the City Commission.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff alleges that the
Quincy mayor told “Commissioner Dr. Wood” and the city manager to meet
and “try to work the matter out.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff complains that he was never
able to meet with anyone to resolve the matter. 	Id. 	He further contends
that Commissioner Wood “corruptly misused her public office” in violation
of Florida statutes to keep her husband, Daron Wood, from being arrested
for assault. 	Id. at 6.
First, there are no factual allegations alleged which support Plaintiff’s
claim against Commissioner Wood. According to Plaintiff’s allegations, the
police were called and refused to take action. No factual allegations were
Case No. 4:25cv367-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00367-AW-MAF Document 12 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
presented which show that Commissioner Wood directed or otherwise
instructed the police to take no action.
Second, Plaintiff has not presented a sufficient claim under § 1983.
To do so, “a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant’s act or
omission, done under color of state law, deprived him of a right, privilege,
or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
Emory v. Peeler, 756 F.2d 1547, 1554 (11th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that his rights were violated. That is because Plaintiff does
not have a constitutional right to press criminal charges against his
neighbor. 1 In American jurisprudence, “a private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Linda
R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S. Ct. 1146, 1149, 35 L. Ed. 2d
536 (1973) (quoted in McGinley v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor
Vehicles, 438 F. App’x 754, 756-57 (11th Cir. 2011); see also State v. Cain,
381 So.2d 1361, 1367 (Fla.1980) (“[T]he discretion of a prosecutor in
deciding whether and how to prosecute is absolute in our system of
criminal justice.”). Because Plaintiff has not alleged the violation of his
1 Plaintiff was previously advised of that fact. ECF No. 6 at 2.
Case No. 4:25cv367-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00367-AW-MAF Document 12 Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
federal constitutional rights, the second amended complaint is insufficient
to state a claim and should be dismissed.
Furthermore, because Plaintiff has already been provided several
opportunities to submit a viable complaint, it is recommended that this case
be dismissed with prejudice. It does not appear that providing further
opportunities to amend would be beneficial.
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 11, be DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on December 8, 2025.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other
Case No. 4:25cv367-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00367-AW-MAF Document 12 Filed 12/08/25 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:25cv367-AW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00367-AW-MAF Document 12 Filed 12/08/25 Page 6 of 6