Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01230/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01230-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID HAIGLER, 

Plaintiff,

v

GRAND CANYON EDUCATION,

INC., et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-1075

HON. JANET T. NEFF

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff David Haigler, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated the present action,

alleging a variety of tort and contract claims stemming from his employment and termination by

Defendant Grand Canyon Education, Inc. Defendants filed several pre-answer motions, including

motions to dismiss for improper venue. On April 9, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court transfer this case to the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (Dkt

57). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and

Recommendation (Dkt 59), to which Defendants Grand Canyon Education, Inc. and Grand Canyon

University, Inc. filed a Response (Dkt 60), as did Defendant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day

Saints (Dkt 61). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court

has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which

objections have been made. The Court denies the objections, declines to decide the remaining

pending motions in this case, and issues this Opinion and Order.

Case 2:13-cv-01230-ROS Document 62 Filed 06/19/13 Page 1 of 3
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s claim originated in Arizona, against

Arizona defendants, concerning events that allegedly occurred in Arizona (R&R, Dkt 57 at 4). The

Magistrate Judge acknowledged Plaintiff’s argument that certain subsequent events occurred in this

District but determined that such were only “tangentially related to Plaintiff’s claims” (id.). The

Magistrate Judge concluded that the substantial events giving rise to this action occurred in the

District of Arizona and, more importantly, no substantial events giving rise to this action occurred

in this District; therefore, she concluded that venue in this District is improper under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b)(2).

In his objections, Plaintiff asserts no legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Rather,

Plaintiff takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s factual assessment, characterizing the assessment

as “biased,” “incorrect” and “unfair.” Plaintiff opines that the bias “resonates throughout [] the

Report and Recommendation,” and that the Magistrate Judge “unfairly leaves out factual

allegations” (Objs., Dkt 59 at 4-5). According to Plaintiff, “the Court’s proper consideration and

the defining of all events in an accurate manner would alter the ruling on the Michigan events as

being significantly material instead of tangentially related and affirm proper venue” (id. at 9).

The Court discerns none of the bias to which Plaintiff objects. See Liteky v. United States,

510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or

partiality motion”). Further, after careful consideration of his Objections, the Court determines that

Plaintiff has revealed no error in the Magistrate Judge’s application of the law to the facts of his

case, only Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s assessment and ultimate

recommendation. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are denied, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation is approved and adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Further, the Court

declines to decide the remaining motions pending in this case.

2

Case 2:13-cv-01230-ROS Document 62 Filed 06/19/13 Page 2 of 3
Accordingly:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 59) are DENIED and the Report and

Recommendation (Dkt 57) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division, and the action in this District is

TERMINATED.

Dated: June __, 2013 

JANET T. NEFF

United States District Judge

3

19 /s/ Janet T. Neff

Case 2:13-cv-01230-ROS Document 62 Filed 06/19/13 Page 3 of 3