Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harmon v. Sussex County

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

December 19, 2017

Sandra Harmon, Plaintiff,
v.
Sussex County, Todd Lawson, Constable Mike Castello, and Kelly Passwater, Defendants.

          ORDER

          R. BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III.[1] See ECF Nos. 8 & 10. The Magistrate Judge recommends transferring this case to the District of Delaware.

         Standard of Review

         The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

         The Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).

         Discussion[2]

         Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this Court-the District of South Carolina-alleging government officials in Sussex County, Delaware have violated her “right to the peaceful enjoyment of [her] private property” located in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware and are seeking to demolish the property. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that she is a resident of South Carolina and that all four defendants are residents of Delaware. See ECF No. 1 at p. 1-2. The Magistrate Judge recommends transferring this case to the District of Delaware because that is where proper venue lies.[3]See R & R at pp. 2-3.

         In her objections, Plaintiff asserts transferring this case to Delaware will “inconvenience” and “result in prejudice to” her. See ECF No. 10. Plaintiff also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and states: “It is my understanding through [the] diversity of citizenship statute that court appearance can be arranged where I, Plaintiff[, ] can appear via video conference to all court hearings at the local district court, while the defendants will appear using the same mechanism.” Id.

         Notably, Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the District of South Carolina is the wrong district for venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which “generally govern[s]” venue.[4]Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S.Ct. 568, 577 (2013). As the Magistrate Judge correctly recognized, venue does not lie in this district because (1) no defendants reside here, (2) no substantial events or omissions occurred here and no substantial part of the property is situated here, and (3) there is a district where this action may be brought-the District of Delaware. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (listing the three categories of venue). Moreover, transfer is “in the interest of justice” and is required under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).[5] Accordingly, the Court will overrule Plaintiff's objections, adopt the R & R, and transfer this case to the District of Delaware.

         Conclusion

         For the foregoing reasons, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 8], and TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.