Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00088/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00088-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES TYRONE EDWARDS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0088-CB-M

LT. LORETTA HOLLAND, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate who is proceeding pro

se, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 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). It is

recommended that this action be transferred to the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Plaintiff named as Defendants Lt. Loretta Holland, Sgt.

Moore, Sgt. Bussey, Sheriff Boswell, and Russell County Jail

Chief Alexander. (Doc. 1) These Defendants appear to reside in

Russell County, Alabama, which is located in the Middle District

of Alabama. Plaintiff complains that while he was incarcerated

at the Russell County Jail, these Defendants forced him to lie in

toilet water, assaulted him with batons, and sprayed him with

mace, and then refused him medical treatment. This action was

filed when Plaintiff incarcerated at the Russell County Jail. 

Presently, Plaintiff is incarcerated at Limestone Correctional

Facility in the Middle District of Alabama. See ADOC Website. 

Case 1:06-cv-00088-CB-M Document 7 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 3
A § 1983 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 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). However, when venue is not

proper in the district of filing, in the interest of justice, a

district court may 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, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s

action occurred in the Middle District of Alabama, and all of

Defendants to this action are located in the Middle District of

Alabama. Venue is, therefore, 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).

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

Case 1:06-cv-00088-CB-M Document 7 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 3
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); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). 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 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. 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 28th day of June, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00088-CB-M Document 7 Filed 06/28/06 Page 3 of 3