This court makes no ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as the 1

assessment and collection of any filing fee should be undertaken by the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 __________________________________

TOMMIE LEE HAUSEY, #158 914 *

Plaintiff, *

 

 v. * 2:06-CV-750-MEF

 (WO)

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, et al., *

Defendants. *

 __________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 23, 2006 Plaintiff Tommie Hausey, an inmate incarcerated at the Bullock

County Correctional Facility located in Union Springs, Alabama, filed this pro se civil action

under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff asserts allegations of fraud and due process

violations with regard to his former employment with the United States Postal Service in Baton

Rouge, Louisiana. Plaintiff names as defendants Willie Johnson, Ron Arceneaux, Postal

Investigator in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the U.S. Postal Service Administrator in Baton Rouge,

Louisiana, and William Henderson, Postmaster General for the Southwest Area Agency. Upon

review of the instant complaint, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint against the

named defendants should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).1

DISCUSSION

Case 2:06-cv-00750-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

 A civil action filed under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “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 (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). The law further provides

that “[t]he 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 the case could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that all the actions about which Plaintiff

complains occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Louisiana. Moreover, it appears from Plaintiff's recitation of the facts that a

majority of witnesses and evidence associated with this case are located in the Middle District

of Louisiana. Thus, the court concludes that from the face of the complaint, the proper venue

for this cause of action is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that in the interest of justice this case

should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

for review and determination.

CONCLUSION

Case 2:06-cv-00750-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be

transferred to United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

 It is further 

ORDERED that on or before September 12, 2006, the parties are DIRECTED to file any

objections to the said Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the

findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the parties are objecting.

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The

parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it

is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's reportshall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court

of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings

in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or

manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds th

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d th

1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former th

Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 30 day of August, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00750-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 3 of 3