Williams v. Swack et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Azrack's R&R as the opinion of the Court. Defendants' motion to transfer venue is granted, and the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 9/24/2013. [Transferred from nyed on 9/26/2013.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
KEITH SWACK eta!.,
U.S. QISTRICT COU!'IT E.O.N.Y.
s:::P 2 s 2013
AMON, Chief United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Williams brings this action against defendants Keith Swack, Sean Warner, Matthew Raddemacher, and Erik Hibsch (collectively, "defendants") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that defendants violated his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well
as claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants were corrections officers at Attica Correctional Facility ("Attica"), where plaintiff was incarcerated in August 2011 and which is located in Wyoming County within the Western District of New York.
According to plaintiff, the defendants physically attacked plaintiff without justification and then
wrote false statements and reports falsely accusing plaintiff of offenses and rule violations. (See
Compl. ,, 11-21.)
On July 16, 2012, Warner filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States District
Court for the Western District of New York, which Raddemacher, Hibsch, and Swack joined.
On June 13,2013, the Honorable Joan M. Azrack, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a comprehensive Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant defendants' motion to transfer venue. Plaintiff filed timely objections to Magistrate Judge Azrack's
When deciding whether to adopt a report and recommendation, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). The Court reviews de novo the portions of an R&R to
which a party has objected and reviews those portions not objected to for clear error. Arista
Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010); Manigaulte v. C.W. Post of Long Island
Univ., 659 F. Supp. 2d 367, 372 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). Plaintiff has not objected to Magistrate Judge
Azrack's statement of applicable law, but contends that she "overlooked and/or gave short shrift
to various factors, that, properly considered, compel a denial of a change of venue." (See PI's
Objs. at I.) Specifically, plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Azrack erred in her consideration
of three factors: the convenience of the witnesses, the convenience of the parties, and the relative means of the parties. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the venue analysis with
respect to these factors, as well as the relative weight accorded them, and finds plaintiffs objections unavailing for the same reasons set forth in the R&R.
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Azrack's R&R as the opinion of the Court. Defendants' motion to transfer venue is granted, and the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action
to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
s/Carol Bagley Amon
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?