Combs v. Giggie et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be TRANSFERRED to the USDC ALND pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1404; Objections to R&R due by 9/2/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 8/17/2009. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION ____________________________ B IL L COMBS, #260 331 P l a in tif f , v. D R . MARISA A. GIGGIE, M.D., et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-644-ID (WO)

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P lain tiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He complains about matters su rro u n d in g his court-ordered mental evaluation which occurred in 2008 at the Taylor Hardin S e c u re Medical Facility located in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 1 Tuscaloosa, Alabama, is located w ith in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of A la b a m a . U p o n review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, as amended, the c o u rt concludes that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the N o rth e rn District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.2

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility located in Union Springs, Alabama. 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 Northern District of Alabama.
2

1

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 f u 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). T h e named defendants reside in the Northern District of Alabama. All of the actions a b o u t which Plaintiff complains occurred at a secure medical facility located within the ju r is d ic tio n of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, it is clear from the face of the complaint, as amended, that the proper venue for this cause of a c tio n 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 co n v en ienc e of the parties this case should be transferred to the United States District Court f o r the Northern District of Alabama 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 Northern District of Alabama

2

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 on or before September 2, 2009 the parties are DIRECTED to file a n y objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the f in d in g s 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 f in 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 i s 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 17th day of August, 2009. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3