Proctor v. Vican et al

Filing 9

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report (DE 6) and incorporates it here by reference. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 2/5/2024. (agaz, ) Modified to edit docket text on 2/5/2024 (agaz, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James Hildred Proctor, Jr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Ronald E. Vican, Mark Peter Pazauhanich, )
Donald Fernbach, Linda C. Fogel, Monroe )
County,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 9:23-cv-06236-JD-MHC

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina. 1 (DE 6.) Plaintiff James Hildred Proctor,
Jr. (“Plaintiff” or “Proctor”), a state prisoner at SCI-Houtzdale in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania,
proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff appears to allege
claims about his October 2000 trial. (DE 1, p. 5.) He requests monetary damages and release from
prison. (Id. at 6.)
The Report was issued on December 20, 2023, recommending Plaintiff’s case be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania because none
of the named Defendants reside in South Carolina, and Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the
events or omissions that gave rise to this claim occurred in this district. 2 Therefore, venue under

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

Plaintiff also filed a motion to change venue. (DE 8.) Given the ruling herein and transfer of
jurisdiction, this motion is terminated as moot.

2

1

28 U.S.C. § 1391 is inappropriate in the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff did not file an
objection to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record
in this case, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Therefore, the Court adopts
the Report (DE 6) and incorporates it here by reference.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is transferred to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
Joseph Dawson, III
United States District Judge

Florence, South Carolina
February 5, 2024

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days
from this date, under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2