Opinion
Case No. 4:17cv259-WS/CAS
09-27-2017
STEPHEN CHAVAULIER HENRY, Plaintiff, v. ASSISTANT WARDEN MAY, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, was granted in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 7, and he has now paid the assessed initial partial filing fee, ECF No. 8. Thus, it is now appropriate to review Plaintiff's amended complaint, ECF No. 5, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff's amended complaint is against Defendants who are primarily located at Apalachee Correctional Institution. The events at issue in this case took place at that institution, at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahochee, Florida, and at the Jackson Hospital in Marianna, Florida. All of those locations are within the territorial jurisdiction of the Panama City Division of this Court, not the Tallahassee Division. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 3.1(A). Considerations about the location of evidence, as well as the convenience of parties and witnesses, underscore the need to transfer this case to the division in which this case should have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A district court "shall dismiss, or it if be in the interest of justice, transfer" a case which was filed in the wrong division. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Justice is better served by transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division.
In light of the foregoing, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), it is it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this action be TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division, and this case be CLOSED.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 27, 2017.
s/ Charles A. Stampelos
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other parties. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.