Woodruff v. Romero et al (INMATE2)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by David Woodruff; it is the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that this case be transferred to the USDC for the District of Wyoming pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1404; Objections to R&R due by 6/5/2006. Signed by Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson on 5/22/06. (vma, )

Woodruff v. Romero et al (INMATE2)

Doc. 4

Case 2:06-cv-00438-MEF-VPM

Document 4

Filed 05/22/2006

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 _______________________________ D A V ID WOODRUFF, #18323 P l a i n t if f , v. S A R E N T ROMERO, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ * * * * * 2:06-CV-438-MEF

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N 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 Wyoming Prison located in Rawlins, W y o m in g , and he asserts that the actions about which he complains occurred at this facility. R a w lin s , Wyoming, is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for th e District of Wyoming. U p o n review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the court concludes th a t this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of W y o m in g pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1

Without addressing the merits of Plaintiff's ability to proceed in this action in forma pauperis, the c o u r t notes that the assessment and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States D is tr ic t Court for the District of Wyoming.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-00438-MEF-VPM

Document 4

Filed 05/22/2006

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 av e been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). N o n e of the named defendants reside in this court's jurisdiction and Plaintiff states th a t actions about which he complains occurred at a facility located within the jurisdiction o f the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. Thus, it is clear that this c o u rt is not the proper venue for the instant action. Rather, it appears from the complaint that th e proper venue for this case is the United States District Court for the District of W y o m in g . In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice and for the co n v en ienc e of the parties this case should be transferred to the United States District Court fo r the District of Wyoming for review and determination. 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 District of Wyoming pursuant to the 2

Case 2:06-cv-00438-MEF-VPM

Document 4

Filed 05/22/2006

Page 3 of 3

p ro v is io n s 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 R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before June 5, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. 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 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 22 n d day of May 2006.

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

3