Opinion
C. A. 3:24-1755-DCC-SVH
04-12-2024
Ronald Satish Emrit,[1]Plaintiff, v. Chief Justice John Roberts; Justice Brett Kavanaugh; Justice Samuel Alito; Justice Amy Coney Barrett; Justice Clarence Thomas; Justice Sonia Sotomayor; Justice Elaine Kegan; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson; Justice Neil Gorsuch; Public Information Officer of the United States Supreme Court; Clerk of United States Supreme Court; and United States Supreme Court, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge.
Ronald Satish Emrit (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging claims against Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elaine Kegan, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Public Information Officer of the United States Supreme Court, Clerk of United States Supreme Court, and United States Supreme Court (“Defendants”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be dismissed for improper venue.
I. Factual Background
Plaintiff alleges he is trying to marry a Ukrainian refugee. [ECF No. 1 at ¶ 33]. He asserts various causes of action against Defendants, alleging civil rights and constitutional violations “by not allowing every Ukrainian refugee to enter the United States and become a legal permanent resident” and “by not providing reparations to African-Americans.” [ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 43-44]. II. Discussion
Federal district courts are vested with the inherent power to control and protect the administration of court proceedings. White v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 783 F.2d 1175, 1177 (4th Cir. 1986). A court has the power to consider sua sponte whether venue is proper. See Jensen v. Klayman, 115 F. App'x. 634, 635-36 (4th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b):
(b) Venue in general.-A civil action may be brought 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.
In absence of venue, a court has authority sua sponte to dismiss the case. “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Here, Defendants do not reside in South Carolina, nor did a substantial part of the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occur in South Carolina. Therefore, venue is not proper in this district. For these reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be dismissed for improper venue.
Because the complaint is subject to dismissal, the undersigned notes that it has not considered whether subject matter jurisdiction is present in this case or whether Plaintiff has standing.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the district court summarily dismiss this matter without prejudice.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).