Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00522/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00522-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RODNEY JAMES-BEY, SR., # 203530, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0522-KD-N 

CYNTHIA DILLARD, et al., : 

Defendants. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate, 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). Upon consideration of 

the pleadings it is the recommendation of the undersigned that this action be transferred 

to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. 

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Fountain Correctional Facility which is located in the 

Southern District of Alabama. The address given for each defendant is Montgomery, 

Alabama, which is located in the Middle District of Alabama. Moreover, the defendants 

are employed either by the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, the Alabama 

Attorney General’s Office, or the Victim Rights Advocacy Organization. The plaintiff 

complains about the recent decision denying him parole. In regard to events transpiring 

in this District, however, the complaint reveals no connection to the Southern District of 

Alabama other than plaintiff’s incarceration at Fountain. 

A ' 1983 action may be brought in 

Case 1:10-cv-00522-KD-N Document 7 Filed 01/04/11 Page 1 of 3
2 

(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, a district court may transfer the action, in the 

interest of justice, to any other district or division where the action might have been 

brought. 28 U.S.C. ' 1406(a). 

In the present action, the address given for each defendant is Montgomery, 

Alabama, and the events giving rise to plaintiff=s action occurred in the Middle District of 

Alabama. Thus, plaintiff=s action appears to have no connection to this district. Venue 

is, therefore, lacking, and appears to be proper in the Middle District of Alabama. 

Considering plaintiff=s pro se status, it is recommended, in the interest of justice, that 

plaintiff=s action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District 

of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1406(a). 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to the 

report and recommendation. 

DONE and ORDERED this _4th__ day of January, 2011. 

 

 /s/ Katherine P. Nelson KK 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00522-KD-N Document 7 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 fourteen 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); 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 AStatement of Objection to Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation@ within 

[fourteen] days1

 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. 

 1

 Effective December 1, 2009, the time for filing written objections was extended to A14 

days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition[.]@ FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(2). 

Case 1:10-cv-00522-KD-N Document 7 Filed 01/04/11 Page 3 of 3