Porch v. Campbell et al (INMATE2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Orlando Dewayne Porch, t is the Recommendation of the Mag. Judge that this case be transferred to the USDC for the Southern District of AL pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1404; Objections to R&R due by 12/12/2005. Signed by Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson on 11/28/05. (vma, )
Porch v. Campbell et al (INMATE2)
Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _______________________________ O R L A N D O DEWAYNE PORCH, #111 575 P l a i n t if f , v. D O N A L CAMPBELL, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-1098-T (W O ) * *
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is matter is before the court on Plaintiff's complaint filed under the provisions of 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently confined at the Holman Correctional Facility and the in c id e n t about which complains occurred at this facility. Holman Correctional Facility is lo c a te d in Atmore, Alabama, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States District C o u rt for the Southern District of Alabama. U p o n review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the court concludes t h a t this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern D is tric t of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1
This court makes no ruling on Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as the a s s e s s m e n t and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the S o u th e r n District of Alabama.
Page 2 of 4
D IS C U S S IO N 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 which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the c laim occurred . . . or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is n o district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The law fu rth e r provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of ju s tic e , a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might h av e been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that all the actions about which P la in tiff complains occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the S o u th e rn District of Alabama. Although Defendant Campbell resides in the Middle District o f Alabama, he is subject to service of process throughout the state and commonly defend s suits in all federal courts of this state. Moreover, it appears from Plaintiff' s recitation o f the facts that a majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are located in the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, the court concludes that from the face of the c o m p la in t, the proper venue for this cause of action is the United States District Court for the S o u th e r District of Alabama.2 In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the
In so ruling, this court does not preliminarily scrutinize the merits of Plaintiff's complaint against
th e named parties.
Page 3 of 4
in te re st of justice and for the convenience of the parties this case should be transferred to the U n ite d States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama for review and d e te rm in a tio n .
C O N C L U SIO N A c c o r d in g ly , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama p u rs u a n t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 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 tio n on or before December 12, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v is e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual fin d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr 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 3
Page 4 of 4
P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D O N E this 28 th day of November, 2005
/s / Vanzetta Penn McPherson V A N Z E T T A PENN MCPHERSON U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?