Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00300/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00300-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TRACY MICHAEL OGLESBY, #287551, ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-300-WHA 

 ) (WO)

)

TALLADEGA COUNTY JAIL )

MEDICAL STAFF & CORRETIONAL )

OFFICERS, )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by 

Tracy Michael Oglesby (“Oglesby”), a state inmate, in which he alleges violations of his 

constitutional rights during a prior stint of confinement in the Talladega County Jail. 

Specifically, Oglesby complains that jail personnel denied him access to medical treatment 

for an injury to his eye suffered in an attack by another inmate on April 3, 2016. 

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 

Northern District of Alabama in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1  

 

1 The plaintiff has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. However, under the 

circumstances of this case, the court concludes that assessment and collection of any filing fee should be 

undertaken by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. 

Case 2:16-cv-00300-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 3
2

II. DISCUSSION

A civil action asserting a violation of a prisoner’s constitutional rights 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). 

The Talladega County Jail is located within the jurisdiction of the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Consequently, the actions about which 

the plaintiff complains occurred in the jurisdiction of that court. It also appears from 

plaintiff’s complaint that the individuals responsible for the alleged constitutional 

violations reside, or at least are employed, within the Northern District of Alabama. Under 

these circumstances, 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 Northern District of Alabama. 

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that 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 Northern District of Alabama for review and determination.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case 

Case 2:16-cv-00300-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 3
3

be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Alabama pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before May 16, 2016 the parties may file 

objections to the Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings 

and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is made; frivolous, 

conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections 

to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District 

Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of 

the party to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual 

and legal conclusions 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); 11th 

Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).

DONE this 2nd day of May, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00300-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 3