United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
DANIEL ERIC COBBLE, Reg. no. 97872-020, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Daniel
Eric Cobble, a frequent federal litigant, filed this civil
action as a “petition for redress under Title 31 U.S.C.
3723 tort violation” challenging the conditions of his
confinement in the Sumter County Jail in Americus, Georgia.
Doc. 1 at 1.[1] Cobble argues he is âbeing illegally
denied protective custodyâ by jail officials because he is in
âimminent danger.â Doc. 1 at 1.
Upon
review of the complaint, the court finds that this case
should be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 1406.[2]
II.
DISCUSSION
A
federal civil “action may be brought in - (1) a
judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district
is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred . . .; or (3) if there is no district in which an
action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section,
any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to
the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such
action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The law further
provides that when a case is filed “laying venue in the
wrong division or district” the court may, “if it
be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any
district . . . where it could have been brought.” 28
U.S.. § 1406(a); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses,
in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any
civil action to any other district . . . where it might have
been brought[.]”).
The
Sumter County Jail in Americus, Georgia is located within the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia. Thus, the specific actions and
conditions about which Cobble complains occurred or are
occurring in the Middle District of Georgia. Moreover, it is
clear from the complaint that the individuals personally
responsible for the challenged actions reside in the Middle
District of Georgia. Under these circumstances, the claims
asserted by Cobble are beyond the venue of this court.
However, it is clear from the face of the complaint that the
proper venue for this cause of action is the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
In
light of the foregoing, the court finds that in the interest
of justice and for the convenience of the parties this case
is due to be transferred to the United States District for
the Middle District of Georgia for review and disposition.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this
case be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
On or
before September 25, 2019, the plaintiff may
file objections to the Recommendation. Any objection must
specifically identify the findings in the Recommendation
objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will
not be considered by the District Court. The plaintiff is
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 plaintiff from a de novo determination by
the District Court of factual findings and legal issues
covered in the report and shall “waive the right to
challenge on appeal the district court's order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except
upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of
justice. 11TH Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v.
Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir.
1993)(“When the magistrate provides such notice and a
party still fails to object to the findings of fact and those
findings are adopted by the district court the party may not
challenge them on appeal in the absence of plain error or
manifest injustice.”); Henley v. Johnson, 885
F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
---------