Dumonde v. State of Tennessee (INMATE2) - Document No. 2
RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. Objections to R&R due by 10/27/2005. Signed by Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson on 10/13/05. (sl, ) 2:2005cv00954 Alabama Middle District Court
Content
Dumonde v. State of Tennessee (INMATE2)
Doc. 2
Case 2:05-cv-00954-ID-VPM
Document 2
Filed 10/13/2005
Page 1 of 3
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _________________________________ DANIEL LAFITTE DUMONDE Petitioner, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-954-D (WO) *
Respondent. * _________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief, Petitioner, an inmate in federal custody, challenges the validity of a detainer lodged against him by officials of Rutherford County, Tennessee.
I. DISCUSSION This court “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice” may transfer a case to any district where it might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Petitioner challenges the legality of a detainer placed against him by law enforcement officials of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Rutherford County, Tennessee, is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. Where a prisoner brings an action in the district court of his confinement seeking to
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-00954-ID-VPM
Document 2
Filed 10/13/2005
Page 2 of 3
challenge a detainer lodged against him by another state, the court may transfer the cause of action to a more convenient forum. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973); Byrd v. Martin, 754 F.2d 963 (11th Cir. 1985). Upon consideration of the factual allegations contained in the present petition, it is clear to this court that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee is the most desirable and convenient forum for the adjudication of Petitioner's claims for habeas corpus relief. It is in the Middle District of Tennessee where all the events material to Petitioner's claims took place and where the records and witnesses pertinent to such claims are likely to be found. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that a transfer of this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is appropriate.
II. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before October 27, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are 2
Case 2:05-cv-00954-ID-VPM
Document 2
Filed 10/13/2005
Page 3 of 3
advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done this 13th day of October 2005.
/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Doc. 2
Case 2:05-cv-00954-ID-VPM
Document 2
Filed 10/13/2005
Page 1 of 3
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _________________________________ DANIEL LAFITTE DUMONDE Petitioner, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-954-D (WO) *
Respondent. * _________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief, Petitioner, an inmate in federal custody, challenges the validity of a detainer lodged against him by officials of Rutherford County, Tennessee.
I. DISCUSSION This court “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice” may transfer a case to any district where it might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Petitioner challenges the legality of a detainer placed against him by law enforcement officials of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Rutherford County, Tennessee, is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. Where a prisoner brings an action in the district court of his confinement seeking to
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-00954-ID-VPM
Document 2
Filed 10/13/2005
Page 2 of 3
challenge a detainer lodged against him by another state, the court may transfer the cause of action to a more convenient forum. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973); Byrd v. Martin, 754 F.2d 963 (11th Cir. 1985). Upon consideration of the factual allegations contained in the present petition, it is clear to this court that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee is the most desirable and convenient forum for the adjudication of Petitioner's claims for habeas corpus relief. It is in the Middle District of Tennessee where all the events material to Petitioner's claims took place and where the records and witnesses pertinent to such claims are likely to be found. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that a transfer of this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is appropriate.
II. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before October 27, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are 2
Case 2:05-cv-00954-ID-VPM
Document 2
Filed 10/13/2005
Page 3 of 3
advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done this 13th day of October 2005.
/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
