Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00479/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00479-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

“[P]repayment of the docket fee [was] waived” for Plaintiff in the

Circuit Court (Doc. 1, attachment 2). 

2Local Rule 72.2 provides, in part:

(a) Purpose of Rule. It has long been the practice

of this Court to refer certain matters to the full-time

magistrate judges. . . . This rule continues that practice

and is intended to authorize the clerk to refer to the fulltime magistrate judges the following matters without any

additional orders of reference.

. . . .

(c)(1) Non-dispositive Pretrial Matters. All civil

actions shall be automatically referred for the purpose of

conducting a pretrial conference and the entry of a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

KERWIN L. DAVIS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00479-WS-B

BLAKE TURMAN, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action was initially filed in the Circuit Court of

Covington County, Alabama, by Plaintiff Kerwin L. Davis, a

prison inmate who is proceeding pro se1. (Doc. 1, attachment

2) Subsequent thereto, Defendant Blake Turman removed the

action to this Court (Doc. 1, attachment 1), and it was

referred to the undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 72.2.2 After careful

Case 1:05-cv-00479-WS-B Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 6
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) scheduling order. The referral shall also

be for the purpose of hearing and determining all nondispositive motions.

2

review of the file, it is recommended that this action be

transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Alabama.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff has named Blake Turman, of

the Alabama State Troopers Department as Defendant. Plaintiff

contends that Turman injured him as a result of the excessive

use of force in Andalusia, Alabama. The undersigned notes

that Andalusia is situated in Covington County, which is

located within the Middle District of Alabama. Plaintiff does

not indicate where Turman or the Alabama State Troopers

Department is located; however, on the Civil Cover Sheet

accompanying Turman’s Notice of Removal, Turman lists his

county of residence as Covington County. (Doc. 1, attachment

3). The summons, which indicates that Defendant Turman

could be served at the Alabama State Trooper Office in

Evergreen, Alabama, is the only assertion of any contact with

the Southern District of Alabama. Furthermore, at the time of

filing, Plaintiff was actually incarcerated at Walton

Correctional Institution, Defuniak Springs, Florida.

A § 1983 action may be brought in:

Case 1:05-cv-00479-WS-B Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 6
(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). When venue is not

proper in the district of filing, a district court may, in the

interest of justice, transfer the action to any other district

or division where the action might have been brought. 28

U.S.C. § 1406(a).

In the present action, it appears that Defendant Turman

resides in the Middle District of Alabama, and that the events

giving rise to Plaintiff’s action also occurred in the Middle

District of Alabama. Venue, therefore, appears to be lacking

in the Southern District. Accordingly, it is recommended

that, in the interest of justice, this action be transferred

to the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Mortensen v. Wheel

Horse Products, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 85, 90 (N.D.N.Y. 1991). 

The attached sheet contains important information

regarding 

Case 1:05-cv-00479-WS-B Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 Page 3 of 6
objections to the Report and Recommendation. If a party

objects to the transfer of this action, information must be

presented in the objection establishing that venue is proper

in the Southern District of Alabama.

DONE this 7

th day of November, 2005.

/s/ Sonja F. Bivins 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00479-WS-B Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 Page 4 of 6
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation

or anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service

of this document, file specific written objections with the

clerk of court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo

determination by the district judge of anything in the

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the

factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more

detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in

part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by

filing a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate

Judge’s Recommendation” within ten days after being

served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a

different time is established by order. The

statement of objection shall specify those portions

of the recommendation to which objection is made and

the basis for the objection. The objecting party

shall submit to the district judge, at the time of

filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a

different disposition made. It is insufficient to

submit only a copy of the original brief submitted

to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the

original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of

the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to

a Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or

judgment can be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten

(10) days of being served with a copy of the statement of

Case 1:05-cv-00479-WS-B Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 Page 5 of 6
objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay

the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required

before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this the 7th day of November, 2005.

/s/ Sonja F. Bivins 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00479-WS-B Document 4 Filed 11/07/05 Page 6 of 6