Brown v. Tunica County School District

Filing 9

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendations, and ORDER transferring to the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division, where venue is proper. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 10/19/2017. (Mays, Samuel)[Transferred from Tennessee Western on 10/20/2017.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

TAMARA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TUNICA COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-cv-2595-SHM-tmp

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, dated August 31, 2017 (the “Report”).
8.)

(ECF No.

The Report recommends that Plaintiff Tamara Brown’s pro se

complaint against Defendant Tunica County School District
(“Tunica”) be transferred sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a).

Brown has not filed any objections to the Report,

and the deadline for doing so has passed.

L.R. 72.1(g)(2).

For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and this
action is TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Mississippi,
Oxford Division, where venue is proper.
On August 16, 2017, Brown filed her complaint against
Defendant Tunica under Title IX of the Education Amendment of
1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, alleging sexual harassment in

Tunica County, Mississippi, that Tunica failed to investigate.
(ECF No. 1 at 1.) 1
On August 31, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Tu M.
Pham entered the Report.

(ECF No. 8.)

The Report recommends

that the action be transferred sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a).

The Report explains that:

The Western District of Tennessee is not a
proper venue for this action. Brown does not allege
that the defendant resides in the Western District of
Tennessee; the only named defendant is a school
district located in Tunica County, Mississippi. See
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Nor does Brown allege that a
“substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred” in the Western District
of Tennessee. See id. § 1391(b)(2). It appears that
all of the alleged events giving rise to the claim –the initial sexual harassment and report, the
investigation (or lack thereof) by Tunica, the
complaint filed with and investigation by the
Mississippi
Department
of
Education,
and
the
investigation by the United States Department of
Education Office of Civil Rights -– occurred in
Mississippi.
The only apparent connection to the
Western District of Tennessee is a P.O. Box in
Germantown, Tennessee, that Brown lists as her
address. But that has no bearing on whether venue is
proper in this District.
It appears that venue is proper in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi.
The undersigned therefore recommends
that, in the interest of justice, the Clerk be
ordered to transfer this case to the Northern
District of Mississippi pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a), and that this case be closed without entry
of judgment.
(ECF No. 8 at 64-65 (footnotes omitted).)

1

Unless otherwise noted, all in-cite page numbers refer to PageID
numbers.

2

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on
the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of districtcourt duties to magistrate judges.

See United States v.

Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v.
United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989)); see also Baker v.
Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

For

dispositive matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has
been properly objected to.”
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28

After reviewing the evidence, the court is

free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s
proposed findings or recommendations.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The district court is not required to review -- under a de novo
or any other standard -- those aspects of the report and
recommendation to which no objection is made.
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Thomas v. Arn,

The district court should adopt the

magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific
objection is filed.

Id. at 151.

Brown has not objected to the Report.
Report should be adopted.

Therefore, the

See Arn, 474 U.S. at 150-51.

For the foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and this
action is TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Mississippi,
Oxford Division, where venue is proper.

3

So ordered this 19th day of October, 2017.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

4