Braggs v. Johnston et al (JC) (INMATE2)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Christopher Demond Braggs that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1404. Objections to R&R due by 7/5/2005. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 6/21/2005. (dmn)

Braggs v. Johnston et al (JC) (INMATE2)

Doc. 3

Case 2:05-cv-00559-MHT-SRW

Document 3

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _______________________________ CHRISTOPHER DEMOND BRAGGS Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF LARRY JOHNSTON, et al., Defendants. _______________________________ * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-559-T * *

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The complaint in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleges that Defendants are failing to provide Plaintiff with adequate medical care. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Hale County Jail located in Greensboro, Alabama, and the actions which form the basis of the instant complaint are occurring at this facility. Hale County, Alabama, is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Upon review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the court concludes that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1 DISCUSSION A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "may be brought . . . in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district

In light of the 1996 revisions to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and under the circumstances of this case, this court makes no ruling on Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as the assessment and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-00559-MHT-SRW

Document 3

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 2 of 3

in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The law further provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The named defendants reside in the Southern District of Alabama. All of the actions about which Plaintiff complains occurred at a facility located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, it is clear from the face of the complaint that the proper venue for this cause of action is the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama for review and determination. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before July 5, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this

2

Case 2:05-cv-00559-MHT-SRW

Document 3

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 3 of 3

Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. DONE, this 21st day of June, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3