Owenby v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas Final Report and Recommendation 3 and dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to allege proper venue. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/2/17. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
JAMES DAVID OWENBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:16-cv-04381-WSD
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas’
Final Report and Recommendation [3] (“R&R”), recommending this action be
dismissed for improper venue.
I.
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2016, Plaintiff James David Owenby (“Plaintiff”) filed his
complaint for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [1]
(“Complaint”) and an Affidavit in Support of Request to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis [2] (“IFP Application”). Plaintiff alleges that prison officials at
Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, in Butts County, did not provide
Plaintiff with a wheelchair for five weeks. (Compl. at 3-4). Butts County lies
within the Middle District of Georgia.
On February 9, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R. In it, she
recommends the Court dismiss this action because (i) Plaintiff does not allege that
any defendants reside in the Northern District of Georgia and (ii) Plaintiff does not
allege that any events occurred in this district. The Magistrate Judge found that
“dismissal rather than transfer best serves the interests of justice” because Plaintiff
“will, at a minimum, need to complete and file a new IFP application before he
may proceed further in any other court. . . .” (R&R at 2). The Magistrate Judge
denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s IFP Application because it did not include a
certified copy of the trust fund account statement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (“A
prisoner seeking to bring a civil action . . . without prepayment of fees . . . shall
submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional
equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the
filing of the complaint . . ., obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at
which the prisoner is or was confined.”)
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);
2
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
1112 (1983). The parties do not object to the R&R, and the Court thus conducts a
plain error review of the record. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095
(11th Cir. 1983).
B.
Analysis
A civil action may be brought only 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 a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated,
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 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
The Magistrate Judge found that venue is not proper in this Court because (i)
Plaintiff did not allege that any defendant resides in this district and (ii) Plaintiff’s
Complaint concerns conduct that took place at Georgia Diagnostic and
Classification Prison, which lies in the Middle District of Georgia. The Magistrate
Judge recommends this action be dismissed for improper venue. The Court finds
3
no plain error in this finding and recommendation. Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas’
Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to allege proper venue.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2017.
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?