United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge
the Court is the report and recommendation ("R &
R") of the Magistrate Judge recommending that this case
be transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina as
proper venue. (Dkt. No. 11.) For the reasons set forth below,
the Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court and
transfers this case to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina.
2018, Plaintiff filed a pro se suit in the District
of South Carolina against Defendants for personal injuries he
suffered from an alleged assault at the Salt Bar Ultra Lounge
in North Carolina. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff received medical
treatment at two hospitals in North Carolina, and thereafter
at two medical facilities in Charleston, South Carolina.
(Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff alleges that he is a
resident of South Carolina and Defendants are residents of
North Carolina. (Id. ¶ 1, 3, 6-11.) Plaintiff
also alleges, "Venue is proper in [the District of South
Carolina] under 28 U.S.C. § 1391." (Id.
¶ 13.) The Magistrate Judge undertook a pre-service
review of the action and recommended that the Court sua
sponte transfer the case in the interest of justice to
the Eastern District of North Carolina. (Dkt. No. 11.)
Plaintiff objected to the findings in the R & R. (Dkt.
Review of R&R
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. See, e.g., Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,
270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Where the Plaintiff objects to the R&R, the Court
"makes a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made."
Transfer for Improper Venue
the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where it might have been
brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A civil action may
(1) in 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 any 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). The Court may undertake sua
sponte transfer of venue when the parties had "an
opportunity to be heard before a decision is rendered."
Feller v. Brock, 802 F.2d 722, 729 n.7 (4th Cir.
1986). Such opportunity to be heard may be in the form of
written notice to file timely objections to the Magistrate
Judge's R & R. See, e.g., Harmon v. Sussex
Cnty, No. 4:17-2931-RBH-TER, 2017 WL 6506396, at n.l
(D.S.C. Nov. 13, 2017).