UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1305

DANA P. BRIGHAM; PATRICIA M. BRIGHAM,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

PATLA, STRAUS, ROBINSON & MOORE, P.A., a North Carolina 

Professional Association; STEVEN I. GOLDSTEIN, Individually 

and as Shareholder and/or Partner in and to Patla, Straus, 

Robinson & Moore, P.A.; ROBERT A. FREEMAN, III, Individually 

and as Shareholder and/or Partner in and to Patla, Straus, 

Robinson & Moore, P.A.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00069-MR-DLH)

Submitted: December 7, 2016 Decided: December 16, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana P. Brigham, Patricia M. Brigham, Appellants Pro Se. E. 

Fitzgerald Parnell, III, Cynthia L. Van Horne, POYNER SPRUILL, 

LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dana P. and Patricia M. Brigham sued the North Carolina law 

firm of Patla, Straus, Robinson & Moore and its attorneys, 

Steven I. Goldstein and Robert A. Freeman, in the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of Florida for legal 

malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The Florida 

district court transferred the case to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of North Carolina after 

finding that the Florida district court lacked personal 

jurisdiction over the North Carolina defendants. The defendants 

then moved to dismiss the action, and the Brighams moved to 

retransfer the case to the Florida district court. The North 

Carolina district court, adopting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge, refused to retransfer the case and granted the 

defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The Brighams appealed, arguing that their amended complaint 

established that the Florida district court had personal 

jurisdiction over the North Carolina defendants, and therefore, 

that this court should reverse the district court’s rulings and 

retransfer the case to the Florida district court. Finding no 

error, we affirm.

We review a district court’s order denying transfer of 

venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for abuse of discretion. See
3

Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th 

Cir. 1991). Although we do not have jurisdiction to review the 

Florida district court’s order to transfer the action to the 

North Carolina district court, we do have authority to review 

the North Carolina district court’s refusal to transfer the case 

back to Florida. See id. Under § 1404(a), a district court may 

transfer a civil action to any other district for the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of 

justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying retransfer to the Florida district court 

because neither convenience nor the interests of justice justify 

retransfer. Moreover, the Brighams’ attempts to argue that the 

Florida district court had personal jurisdiction over the North 

Carolina Defendants impermissibly ask this court to review the 

Florida district court’s order. See Brock, 933 F.2d at 1257.

Having found proper the district court’s denial of the 

motion for retransfer of venue, we also affirm the district 

court’s dismissal of the Brighams’ amended complaint. Our 

review of the district court’s order confirms that the amended 

complaint asserted time-barred claims.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED