1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL IKELIONWU, : No. 4:CV-05-2629

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. : (Magistrate Judge Mannion)

:

WARDEN JOHN NASH, :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

February 1, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On December 19, 2005, Plaintiff Michael Ikelionwu (“Plaintiff” or

“Ikelionwu”), an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institute at Allenwood (“FCIAllenwood”), in White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed this pro se action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Malachy

E. Mannion for preliminary review. 

On December 29, 2005, Magistrate Judge Mannion issued a report

recommending that the action be transferred to the United States District Court for

the District of New Jersey. Objections to the report were due on January 31, 2006

Case 4:05-cv-02629-JEJ Document 10 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 4
1

 We note that on January 9, 2006, the report and recommendation was returned to the

Clerk’s office as undeliverable. (Rec. Doc. 8). On January 17, 2006, Plaintiff’s address was

updated on the docket and the report and recommendation was remailed to him. No objections

have been received by the Court to date. 

2

and to date none have been filed.1

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

When no objections are made to a magistrate’s report, the district court is

not statutorily required to review a magistrate judge’s report before accepting it. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the Third Circuit,

however, “the better practice is to afford some level of review to dispositive legal

issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.

1987). When a district court accepts a magistrate judge’s report, the report

becomes the judgment of the court. Id. 

DISCUSSION:

Our review of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s determinations and

although we have not been presented with any reason to revisit them, we will

briefly reiterate the salient aspects of the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation. 

As the Magistrate Judge explains, the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint is that

officials at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey (“FCI-Fort

Dix”) lost his property during his transfer to FCI-Allenwood. (Rep. & Rec. at 1;

Case 4:05-cv-02629-JEJ Document 10 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 4
2

 We note that in a civil action where jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity of

citizenship, venue is proper only 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 situation, 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). 

3

Rec. Doc. 1 at 2). After a careful review of the record, we agree with the

Magistrate Judge that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) creates proper venue in the United

States District Court for the District of New Jersey since the alleged incidents

complained of occurred in FCI-Fort Dix, New Jersey.2

 Second, the Magistrate

Judge accurately submits that the interests of justice lean in favor of transferring

the instant action to the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),

based at least in part on the fact that this case is in its early stages and that any

potential witnesses would be located in the District of New Jersey.

Because we find no error in Magistrate Judge Mannion’s report and

recommendation and, because no objections have been filed, we will adopt the

report as our own. The case sub judice will be transferred to the United States

District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Case 4:05-cv-02629-JEJ Document 10 Filed 02/01/06 Page 3 of 4
4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Magistrate Judge Mannion’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 7) is

adopted in its entirety. 

2. The Clerk shall transfer this case to the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey.

s/ John E. Jones III

 John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02629-JEJ Document 10 Filed 02/01/06 Page 4 of 4