Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00559/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00559-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

In light of the 1996 revisions to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and under the circumstances of this case, this court

makes no ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as the assessment and collection

of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Alabama.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

CHRISTOPHER DEMOND BRAGGS *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-559-T

SHERIFF LARRY JOHNSTON, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The complaint in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleges that Defendants are failing to provide

Plaintiff with adequate medical care. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Hale County Jail

located in Greensboro, Alabama, and the actions which form the basis of the instant complaint are

occurring at this facility. Hale County, Alabama, is located within the jurisdiction of the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

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 Southern District of

Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1

 

DISCUSSION

 A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "may be brought . . . in (1) a judicial

district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district

Case 2:05-cv-00559-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 3
2

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 named defendants reside in the Southern District of Alabama. All of the actions about

which Plaintiff complains occurred at a facility located within the jurisdiction of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Thus, 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 Southern

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

Southern District of Alabama for review and determination.

CONCLUSION

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

transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before July 5, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the

findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general

objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this

Case 2:05-cv-00559-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 3
3

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 party from a de novo determination by the District Court of

issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the

report 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). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.,

667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981,

en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down

prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 21st day of June, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00559-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 06/21/05 Page 3 of 3