Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00493/USCOURTS-alsd-1_08-cv-00493-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobby L. Gray
Plaintiff
G. Patterson Keahey
Defendant
Annie Mary Nobles
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

Plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees. (Doc. 3). The Court is withholding a ruling

on this Motion in light of the Undersigned’s recommendation that

this case be transferred to the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Alabama. 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOBBY L. GRAY and 

ANNIE MARY NOBLES, :

Plaintiffs, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 08-00493-CG-B

G. PATTERSON KEAHEY, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs Bobby L. Gray and Annie Mary Nobles filed this pro

se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. 2 at 4).1 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).

After careful consideration, it is recommended that this action be

transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Alabama.

Plaintiff Bobby L. Gray, who is incarcerated in Leakesville,

Mississippi, asserts that he has a power of attorney for his

mother, Plaintiff Annie Mary Nobles, who resides in Waynesboro,

Mississippi. According to Gray, the power of attorney bestows upon

him the right to represent his mother in this action. (Doc. 1 at

Case 1:08-cv-00493-CG-B Document 5 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 5
2

1). 

In this action, Plaintiffs are suing Defendant G. Patterson

Keahey, an attorney who resides in Birmingham, Alabama. Plaintiffs

allege that Ms. Nobles’ uncle, Lugene Edwards, was exposed to

asbestos, and that following his death, Mr. Keahey was retained to

file a wrongful death action. Plaintiffs further allege that Mr.

Keahey has made one payment of less that $5,000.00 to Ms. Nobles,

and that he has breached his fiduciary duties and committed

malpractice by settling the case without her permission and by

failing to make payments to her. (Doc. 1 at 3; Doc. 2 at 12-13).

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). 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 where the action may

have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Based upon the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint, it

appears that Defendant Keahey resides in the Northern District of

Case 1:08-cv-00493-CG-B Document 5 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 5
3

Alabama and that the events giving rise to Plaintiff Nobles’ claims

did not occur in this District; thus, venue is lacking in this

District. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the

undersigned recommends this action be transferred to the United

States District Court for the Northern 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 this the 23rd day of September, 2008.

 /S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00493-CG-B Document 5 Filed 09/23/08 Page 3 of 5
4

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 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). 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, in part, 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

Case 1:08-cv-00493-CG-B Document 5 Filed 09/23/08 Page 4 of 5
5

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.

 /S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00493-CG-B Document 5 Filed 09/23/08 Page 5 of 5