I N THE UN I TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF TEXAS DAL LAS DIVI SI ON SCOTT K. GINSBURG, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:13-CV -952-L § GEORG ETOWN UNIVERSIT Y, § § Def endant. § MEMORAN DUM OP INION AND ORDER Be fore the court is Defendant Georg etown University ’s M otion to Transf er (Doc. 9), filed April 9, 2013. The motion to transfe r was ref err ed to Mag istrate J udg e Renee Har ris Toliver, who enter ed Finding s, Conclusions and Recommendation o f the United States Mag istrate J udg e (“Repor t”) on August 8, 2013, rec ommending that Def endant Geor g etown University ’s Motion to Transf er (Doc

. 9) be g rante d. On August 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, contending that the mag istrate judge did not g ive proper defe renc e or weight to his choice of forum, and that the fac tors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) considere d by the mag istrate judge should not trump his choice of

forum. A motion to transfe r venue is nondispositi ve in nature
. The court there fore applies a “cle arly

err oneous” standard to the mag istrate judge ’s fac tual conclusions, a “contr ary to law” standard to the her leg al conclusions, and an “abuse of discretion” standard to the “numer ous i n s t an ce s in which mag istrate judge s exercise discretion in resolving nondispositi ve matters.” Lahr v. F ulbright & Jaworski, LLP , 164 F.R.D. 204, 208 (N.D. Tex. 1996). The court “has wide discretion to deter mine whether to transfe r for the convenie nce of parties and in the interest of justice.” W

eber v. Coney , 642

M em ora ndum

Opinion and O rder – Pag e 1F.2d 91, 93 (5th Cir. 1981). “An abuse of discre tion exis ts only when there is definite and firm

conviction that the [m ag istrate judge ] committed clea r err or of judgme nt in the conclusion it rea ched upon a weighing of the rele vant fac tors.” Smith v. Smith , 154 F.R.D. 661, 6 6 5 (N.D. Tex. 1994) (quoting Conkling v. Turner , 18 F.3d 1285, 1293 ( 5th Cir.1994)). E v e n ta kin g in to c o nsideration Plaintiff’s choice of forum, the court conclud e s th a t D e f e n d a nt has met its burden, and that the mag istrate judge ’s deter mination that this case should be transfe rre d to the United States District Court for the District of Columbi a is corr ect. Whil e a plaintiff’s choice of forum is important, it is not deter minative. See In re Volkswagen of America, Inc ., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) (en banc) (explaining the plaintiff’s choice of forum is to be considere d in deciding a motion to transfe r under Section 1404(a) but noting that “the statute require s only that the transfe r be ‘[f]or the convenie nce of the parties, in the interest of justice.’”) (citation omitted). In the objections, Plaintiff overstate s the importance of his choice of forum

. Not withstanding the objections, the court is convince d that Def endant has met its burden and shown that the “tra nsfer ee venue is c lear ly

more c onvenient.” Id. A c c o rd in g ly, afte r revie wing the motion, the parties’ briefs and evidenc e, file, applic a b le la w , rec ord i n this case, a

nd the findi ng s and conclusions of the magistrate judge , the court deter mines that the findi ng s and conclusions of t he magistrate judge are corr ect and acce pts them as those of t h e court. The court therefor e overr ules Plaintiff’s objections and grants Def endant Geor get o wn University ’s Motion to Transf er (Doc

. 9). Pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1404(a) , for the convenie nce of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, the court here by transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of C o l u mb ia. The cler k of the court shall eff

ect the transfe r in ac corda

nce w ith the usual proce dure.

M em ora ndum

Opinion and O rder – Pag e 2It is so ordere d this 26th day of August, 2013.

_________________________________ Sam A. L indsay United States District J udg e

M em ora ndum

Opinion and O rder – Pag e 3