Haigler v. Grand Canyon Education Incorporated et al

Filing 62

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 57 ; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb) [Transferred from miwd on 6/20/2013.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID HAIGLER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:12-cv-1075
HON. JANET T. NEFF

v
GRAND CANYON EDUCATION,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff David Haigler, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated the present action,
alleging a variety of tort and contract claims stemming from his employment and termination by
Defendant Grand Canyon Education, Inc. Defendants filed several pre-answer motions, including
motions to dismiss for improper venue. On April 9, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (Dkt
57).

The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and

Recommendation (Dkt 59), to which Defendants Grand Canyon Education, Inc. and Grand Canyon
University, Inc. filed a Response (Dkt 60), as did Defendant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints (Dkt 61). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court
has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections have been made. The Court denies the objections, declines to decide the remaining
pending motions in this case, and issues this Opinion and Order.

The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s claim originated in Arizona, against
Arizona defendants, concerning events that allegedly occurred in Arizona (R&R, Dkt 57 at 4). The
Magistrate Judge acknowledged Plaintiff’s argument that certain subsequent events occurred in this
District but determined that such were only “tangentially related to Plaintiff’s claims” (id.). The
Magistrate Judge concluded that the substantial events giving rise to this action occurred in the
District of Arizona and, more importantly, no substantial events giving rise to this action occurred
in this District; therefore, she concluded that venue in this District is improper under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b)(2).
In his objections, Plaintiff asserts no legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Rather,
Plaintiff takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s factual assessment, characterizing the assessment
as “biased,” “incorrect” and “unfair.” Plaintiff opines that the bias “resonates throughout [] the
Report and Recommendation,” and that the Magistrate Judge “unfairly leaves out factual
allegations” (Objs., Dkt 59 at 4-5). According to Plaintiff, “the Court’s proper consideration and
the defining of all events in an accurate manner would alter the ruling on the Michigan events as
being significantly material instead of tangentially related and affirm proper venue” (id. at 9).
The Court discerns none of the bias to which Plaintiff objects. See Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or
partiality motion”). Further, after careful consideration of his Objections, the Court determines that
Plaintiff has revealed no error in the Magistrate Judge’s application of the law to the facts of his
case, only Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s assessment and ultimate
recommendation. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are denied, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation is approved and adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Further, the Court
declines to decide the remaining motions pending in this case.

2

Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 59) are DENIED and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 57) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division, and the action in this District is
TERMINATED.

Dated: June 19 2013
__,

/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

3