Stallings v. Hoffman
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker's Final Report and Recommendation 5 is ADOPTED, and this action is TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division, for further proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert E. Stallings's Motion to Intervene 7 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/12/2014. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
ROBERT E. STALLINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:14-cv-806-WSD
HOFFMAN, CAPTAIN,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker’s Final
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [5], and on Plaintiff Robert E. Stallings’s
Motion to Intervene [7].
I.
BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff Robert E. Stallings (“Plaintiff”) is confined at the Charles B.
Webster Detention Center in Augusta, Georgia (“the Jail”). On March 19, 2014,
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the
captain at the Jail (“Defendant”). Plaintiff contends that he is being denied
1
The facts are taken from the R&R and the record. The parties have not objected
to any facts set out in the R&R, and finding no plain error in the Magistrate
Judge’s findings, the Court adopts them. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776,
779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993).
sufficient access to the Jail’s law library. Plaintiff seeks an injunction ordering
Defendant to provide Plaintiff more access to the law library, to research issues
regarding his pending criminal case.
On March 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R, recommending
that this action be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia, Augusta Division, because the action was filed in the wrong venue. On
May 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Intervene, in which he (i) confirms to the
Court that he has filed no objections to the R&R, (ii) requests that his public
defender be removed from his case, and (iii) asks the Court for legal advice on how
to name his public defender in his civil rights action, and on how to transfer his
action to the proper venue. Plaintiff did not object to the R&R.
II.
DISCUSSION
a. Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59;
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied,
459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
2
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This requires that the district
judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been
made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th
Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to those findings and
recommendations to which objections have not been asserted, the Court must
conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Plaintiff did not object
to the findings and recommendations in the R&R, and the Court reviews them for
plain error.
b. Analysis
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s Complaint relates only to
his confinement in Richmond County, Georgia, and that Richmond County is
within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia. The Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division, and the
Court finds no plain error in this recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The
district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong
division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such
case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”); Hemispherx
3
Biopharma, Inc. v. MidSouth Capital, Inc., 669 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1359 (S.D. Fla.
2009) (“The interests of justice generally favor transferring a case to the
appropriate judicial district rather than dismissing it.”)
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker’s Final
Report and Recommendation [5] is ADOPTED, and this action is
TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia,
Augusta Division, for further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert E. Stallings’s Motion to
Intervene [7] is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2014.
4
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?