UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-23645-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

JEREMIAH VINCENT ISAAC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff, Jeremiah Vincent Isaac, filed a pro se Complaint Under 

the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. [Section] 1983 [ECF No. 1] against Defendants, the Florida 

Department of Corrections and Liberty Correctional Institution. Plaintiff is incarcerated at Liberty 

Correctional Institution, located in Bristol, Florida, and alleges legal violations that occurred there. 

(See generally id.). On September 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid1 issued a Report & 

Recommendation for Transfer of Venue [ECF No. 4], recommending the case be transferred to the 

Northern District of Florida. (See generally id.). 

When a magistrate judge’s disposition has been objected to, district courts must review the 

disposition de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, 

“the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition 

(citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court 

has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to require a de novo review only where objections have 

1 The Clerk referred the case to Judge Reid for a report and recommendation on dispositive matters pursuant 

to Administrative Order 2019-2. (See Clerk’s Notice [ECF No. 2]). 

Case 4:20-cv-00465-WS-MAF Document 5 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 3
CASE NO. 20-23645-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

2

been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) 

(“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate[] 

[judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party 

objects to those findings.” (alterations added)). The Supreme Court further stated nothing in the 

legislative history “demonstrates an intent to require the district court to give any more 

consideration to the magistrate’s report than the court considers appropriate.” Id. 

The Report advised Plaintiff he had 14 days to file objections. (See Report 4). To date, 

Plaintiff has not filed objections. The Court therefore reviews the Report for clear error. 

The Report concludes Plaintiff should have filed this action in the Northern District of 

Florida under the applicable venue provisions because Defendants are located in the Northern 

District and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred there. (See Report 2). The Court 

agrees. 

Venue in a civil action brought in a district court of the United States exists in 

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents 

of the State in which the district is located; (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) if there 

is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this 

section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s 

personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Proper venue under subsection (1) is in the Northern District because the 

Florida Department of Corrections and Liberty Correctional Institution are both located in that 

District. See Hartley v. Clark, No. 06-21434-Civ, 2009 WL 5128240, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 

2009) (“The Department of Corrections is located in Tallahassee[.]” (alteration added)); Colon v.

Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No. 4:16cv176, 2016 WL 1729529, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2016), 

report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 1733457 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2016) (“Liberty 

Case 4:20-cv-00465-WS-MAF Document 5 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 20-23645-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

3

Correctional Institution, in Bristol, Florida, [] is located in the Northern District of Florida.” 

(alteration added)). Venue is also proper in the Northern District under subsection (2) because the 

alleged events occurred at Liberty Correctional Institution. (See generally Compl.).

Moreover, the Report correctly concludes transfer, rather than dismissal, is appropriate. 

(See Report 2–4); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed a 

case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, 

transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”). 

The undersigned has reviewed the Report, record, and applicable law to assure herself that 

no clear error appears on the face of the record. Considering that review, the undersigned agrees 

with Judge Reid’s analysis and recommendation. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 4] is ACCEPTED AND 

ADOPTED. The Clerk is instructed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Florida and mark this case as CLOSED in this District. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 25th day of September, 2020.

 __________________________________

 CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Plaintiff, Jeremiah Vincent Isaac, pro se;

Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid

Case 4:20-cv-00465-WS-MAF Document 5 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 3