United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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. See ECF Nos. 8 & 10. The
Magistrate Judge recommends transferring this case to the
District of Delaware.
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).
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).
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.See R & R at pp. 2-3.
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.”
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.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). Accordingly, the Court will overrule
Plaintiff's objections, adopt the R & R, and transfer
this case to the District of Delaware.
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).
IS SO ORDERED.