Johnson v. Thomas (INMATE2)
RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1404. Objections to R&R due by 2/13/2006. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/30/06. (sl, )
Johnson v. Thomas (INMATE2)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _______________________________ R O B E R T L. JOHNSON P l a i n t if f , v. LE V A N THOMAS, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ * * * * * 2:06-CV-64-ID WO
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P la in tiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on January 23, 2006. He files the co m p lain t against "Levon Thomas, etc.," and indicates that the incident about which he c o m p la in s occurred at the Holman Correctional Facility on February 4, 2005. While the c o m p la in t is devoid of much factual support, it does, as noted, indicate that the actions which fo rm the basis of the instant complaint occurred at the Holman Correctional Facility which is located in Atmore, Alabama. Atmore, Alabama, is located within the jurisdiction of the U n ite d States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. U p o n 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 D is tric t of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 1
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.
Page 2 of 3
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 ave been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). T h e complaint in this matter reflects that the conduct and/or action giving rise to the filin g of this matter occurred at a facility located within the jurisdiction of the United States D is tric t Court for the Southern District of Alabama. It appears from the complaint that the n a m e d defendant resides in the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, it is clear from the face o f the complaint that the proper venue for this cause of action is the United States District C o u rt for the Southern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice and for the co n ven ienc e of the parties this case should be transferred to the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Alabama for review and determination. C O N C L U SIO N A c c o r d in gly , 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 2
Page 3 of 3
p u rsua 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 February 13, 2006. 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 vis 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 gis 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 gs in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain erro 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 ric 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 Se p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e this 30 th day of January, 2006.
/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3
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?