Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00520/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00520-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT DUNKLIN, #227652, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-0520-KD-N

KENNEDY HARDEN, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate who is proceeding pro se, filed an action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This action, which has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2 (c)(4), is recommended to be 

transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.1

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Easterling Correctional Facility, which is located in Barbour 

County in the Middle District of Alabama. The address given for the sole defendant, Kennedy 

Harden, Sheriff of Butler County, Alabama, is Greenville, Alabama, which is located in the 

Butler County in the Middle District of Alabama. In his complaint, plaintiff complains about the 

inadequate medical treatment he received while incarcerated at the Butler County Correctional 

Facility. With respect to events occurring in this District, the complaint reveals no connection to 

the Southern District. 

A § 1983 action may be brought in

 1 Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (Doc. 4), which was granted. 

(Doc. 5). Subsequently, plaintiff paid the assessed partial filing fee of $4.43. (Doc. 6). For an 

orderly administration of this action, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send the partial filing fee to the 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama at the time this action is 

transferred.

Case 1:14-cv-00520-KD-N Document 7 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 3
2

(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 a substantial part of property that is the subject of the 

action is situated, 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); see New Alliance Party of Ala. v. Hand, 933 F.2d 1568, 1570 (11th Cir. 

1991) (applying § 1391(b)’s venue provisions to a § 1983 action). But, when venue is not proper 

in the district of filing, a district court may transfer the action, in the interest of justice, to any 

other district or division where the action might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

In the present action, the address given for the defendant is Greenville, Alabama, in the 

Middle District of Alabama, and the events giving rise to plaintiff’s action occurred in the 

Middle District of Alabama. Thus, plaintiff’s action appears to have no connection to this 

district. Venue is, therefore, lacking, and appears to be proper in the Middle District. 

Considering plaintiff’s pro se status, it is recommended, in the interest of justice, that plaintiff’s 

action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Kapordelis v. Danzig, 387 F. App’x 905, 906-07 (11thCir.) 

(unpublished) (affirming the sua sponte transfer, pursuant to § 1406(a), of a Bivens action from 

New York to Georgia), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 1481 (2011).

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner 

provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within 

fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with 

the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. 

Case 1:14-cv-00520-KD-N Document 7 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 3
3

The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, “the failure to object limits the 

scope of [] appellate review to plain error review of the magistrate judge’s factual findings.” 

Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013). In order to be specific, an objection 

must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis 

for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation 

where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference 

or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this the 21st day of January, 2015. 

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00520-KD-N Document 7 Filed 01/22/15 Page 3 of 3