From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Decory v. Anderson

United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina
Apr 12, 2022
1:22CV260 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2022)

Opinion

1:22CV260

04-12-2022

WILLIAM MARTIN ARDENE DECORY, Plaintiff, v. D. ANDERSON, et al., Defendant(s).


ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Joe L. Webster, United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner housed in the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, submitted a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff alleges that an officer broke a needle off in his arm, left it, and refused him medical treatment. For the reasons explained below, this action should be transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina.

The statute for determining venue in the present case is 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which reads in pertinent part:

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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Here, all named Defendants are employed at FMC Butner, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and it appears that the events or omissions giving rise to the claims also occurred in that District. Thus, venue is not proper in the Middle District, but is proper in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Moreover, the Court has discretion to transfer this action to an appropriate district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). See, e.g., Saudi v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 427 F.3d 271, 277 (4th Cir. 2005); In re Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, and in the interest of justice, this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for further proceedings.

In forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that In forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for Eastern District of North Carolina.


Summaries of

Decory v. Anderson

United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina
Apr 12, 2022
1:22CV260 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2022)
Case details for

Decory v. Anderson

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM MARTIN ARDENE DECORY, Plaintiff, v. D. ANDERSON, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina

Date published: Apr 12, 2022

Citations

1:22CV260 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2022)