United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
July 1, 2015
DONALD HILYER, JR., #165924, Plaintiff,
JEFFERSON DUNN and CATHRYN GIBSON, Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
WALLACE CAPEL, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Donald Hilyer, Jr. ("Hilyer"), a state inmate, challenges the constitutionality of medical treatment provided to him during his confinement at the J.O. Davis Correctional Facility and the Fountain Correctional Center.
Upon review of the factual allegations presented in the complaint, the court concludes that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action "may be brought... 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 (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 law further provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district... where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Both J.O. Davis Correctional Facility and Fountain Correctional Center are located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, the actions about which the plaintiff complains occurred or are occurring in the Southern District of Alabama. In addition, Cathryn Gibson, the Health Services Administrator for the aforementioned facilities, resides in the Southern District of Alabama as do all individuals personally involved in the provision of medical treatment to Hilyer. Although by virtue of his position as commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections the remaining defendant, Jefferson Dunn, presumably resides in the Middle District of Alabama, he is subject to service of process throughout the state and commonly defends suits in all federal courts of this state. It is therefore clear that the majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are located in the Southern District of Alabama.
In light of the foregoing, the court concludes in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama for review and determination.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. It is further
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before July 15, 2015. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); s ee Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); s ee also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).