Dumonde v. State of Tennessee (INMATE2)

Filing 2

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. Objections to R&R due by 10/27/2005. Signed by Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson on 10/13/05. (sl, )

Dumonde v. State of Tennessee (INMATE2)

Doc. 2

Case 2:05-cv-00954-ID-VPM

Document 2

Filed 10/13/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E RN DIVISION _________________________________ D A N I EL LAFITTE DUMONDE Petitioner, v. S T A T E OF TENNESSEE * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-954-D (WO) *

Res pon dent. * _________________________________ R E C O M M E N D A TI O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief, Petitioner, an inmate in f e d e r a l custody, challenges the validity of a detainer lodged against him by officials of Ru ther ford County, Tennessee.

I. DISCUSSION T his court "[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest o f justice" may transfer a case to any district where it might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Petitioner challenges the legality of a detainer placed against him by law e n f o r c e m e n t officials of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Rutherford County, Tennessee, is l o c a te d within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Te nne ssee , Nashville Division. Where a prisoner brings an action in the district court of his confinement seeking to

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-00954-ID-VPM

Document 2

Filed 10/13/2005

Page 2 of 3

c h a l le n g e a detainer lodged against him by another state, the court may transfer the cause of a c t io n to a more convenient forum. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U . S . 484 (1973); Byrd v. Martin, 754 F.2d 963 (11th Cir. 1985). Upon consideration of the f a c t u al allegations contained in the present petition, it is clear to this court that the United S t a t e s District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee is the most desirable and c o n v e n i e n t forum for the adjudication of Petitioner's claims for habeas corpus relief. It is in t h e Middle District of Tennessee where all the events material to Petitioner's claims took p l a c e and where the records and witnesses pertinent to such claims are likely to be found. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that a transfer of this case to the United States D i s t r ic t Court for the Middle District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is app rop riate .

II. CONCLUSION A c c o r d i n g l y , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, N a s h v i l le Division. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a t i o n on or before October 27, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, c o n c l u s iv e or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are 2

Case 2:05-cv-00954-ID-VPM

Document 2

Filed 10/13/2005

Page 3 of 3

a d v i s e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a l a b le . Failu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M agistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Cou rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f i n d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e r r o r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r i c h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c i s io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p t e m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e this 13th day of October 2005.

/ s / Vanzetta Penn McPherson V A N Z E T TA PENN MCPHERSON U N I TE D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3