Bragg v. Warden London Correctional Insitution

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Thomas Bragg be transferred to the ND of Toledo, OH; Objections to R&R due by 12/31/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 12/14/12. (sh1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Thomas Bragg,

:
Petitioner

Warden, London
Institution,

Correctional

Civil Action 2:12-cv-1149

:

v.

:

Judge Watson

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:
Respondent
:

Report and Recommendation
Petitioner Thomas Bragg, a prisoner at the London Correctional Institution,
brings this action for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254. This matter is before
the Magistrate Judge for preliminary consideration under Rule 4, Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts.
The petition alleges that on January 20, 2009, petitioner Bragg was convicted of
one count of attempted murder in the Court of Common Pleas for Lucas County, Ohio.
He was sentenced to a term of nine years in prison.
Lucas County is within Ohio’s northern federal judicial district. Because petitioner challenges the conviction of a state court within the Northern District of Ohio but
is in custody in the Southern District of Ohio, both districts have concurrent jurisdiction
over the action. 28 U.S.C. §2241(d).

This Court has the discretion to transfer this action to the Northern District for
hearing and determination. Id. A transfer to the Northern District is appropriate in this
case because it is the more convenient forum and the evidence is more readily accessible
in the district where petitioner was convicted See, Bell v. Watkins, 692 F.2d 999, 1013 (5th
Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 843 (1983); see also, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 497 n.13 (1973).
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this action be
TRANSFERRED o the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at
Toledo.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail or email a copy of this Order to the
Attorney General of Ohio, Corrections Litigation Section, 150 E. Gay St., 16th Floor,
Columbus, OH 43215.
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within
fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the
Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof
in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),
Fed. R. Civ. P.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District
Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.

-2-

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See
also, Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-