Woodruff v. Romero et al (INMATE2)
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)
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.
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
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
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?