Powell v. Blake et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 3

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1404. Objections to R&R due by 10/8/2006. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 9/26/06. (sl, )

Powell v. Blake et al (INMATE 2)

Doc. 3

Case 2:06-cv-00824-MEF-SRW

Document 3

Filed 09/26/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _______________________________ RONNIE ODELL POWELL, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF DORNINT BLAKE, et al., * * * * 2:06-CV-824-MEF (WO)

Defendants. * _______________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Ronnie Powell ["Powell"], a state inmate, challenges actions taken against him at the Madison County Jail. Powell is presently incarcerated at the Limestone Correctional Facility located in Harvest, Alabama. The actions which form the basis of the instant complaint occurred while Powell was incarcerated at the Madison County Jail. Madison County, Alabama, is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Upon 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 Northern District 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 assessment and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-00824-MEF-SRW

Document 3

Filed 09/26/2006

Page 2 of 4

DISCUSSION 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 claim occurred . . . or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The law further provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The named defendants reside in the Northern District of Alabama. All of the actions about which Powell complains occurred at a facility located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, it is clear from the face of the complaint that the proper venue for this cause of action is the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for review and determination. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 2

Case 2:06-cv-00824-MEF-SRW

Document 3

Filed 09/26/2006

Page 3 of 4

It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before October 8, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the parties are objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. DONE, this 26th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:06-cv-00824-MEF-SRW

Document 3

Filed 09/26/2006

Page 4 of 4

4