United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
Christopher Hutton ("Plaintiff) filed a Complaint
against Warden Brandon Pinion and to unknown persons,
alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while
incarcerated at the Amite Parish County Jail in Amite,
Louisiana. (ECF No. 1.) The matter before the court
is a review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation ("Report") issued on August 15,
2019, that recommends that the court transfer this action to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. (ECF No. 8 at 4.)
Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards,
which this court incorporates herein without a full
recitation. (ECF No. 8 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on
January 26, 2018, he was stabbed thirteen (13) times by
another inmate. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that
Defendants failed to lockdown the jail, which allowed his
attacker access to his cell. (Id.)
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no
presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Id. at 271. As
such, the court is charged with making de novo
determinations of those portions of the Report to which
specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In the
absence of specific obj ections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report, the court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a
de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation." Diamondv.
Colonial Life &Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's
note). Thus, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
court is required to interpret pro se documents
liberally and will hold those documents to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). See also
Hardin v. United States, C/A No. 7:12-cv-0118-GRA, 2012
WL 3945314, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2012). Additionally,
pro se documents must be construed in a favorable
manner, "no matter how inartfully pleaded, to see
whether they could provide a basis for relief."
Garrett v. Elko, No. 95-7939, 1997 WL 457667, at *1
(4th Cir. Aug. 12, 1997). Although pro se documents
are liberally construed by federal courts, "[t]he
'special judicial solicitude' with which a district
court should view pro se complaints does not
transform the court into an advocate." Wetter v.
Dep'tof Soc. Servs. for Bait, 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th
Magistrate Judge concluded that the District of South
Carolina is the improper venue for Plaintiffs action. (ECF
No. 8 at 3.) The Report provides: "[t]his court does not
have personal jurisdiction over Louisiana-based Defendants.
However, '[a] district court has the power to transfer
venue under [28 U.S.C.] § 1404(a) [(2011)] even if it
lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants in the
action." (ECF No. 8 at 3 n.l.) Section 1404 provides:
"For 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 or to any district or division to which all
parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
"[b]ecause the court raised the issue of transfer of
venue sua sponte, pursuant to Feller v.
Brock, 802 F.2d 722, 729 n.7 (4th Cir. 1986), Plaintiff
must be given an opportunity to be heard before a final
decision on transfer is rendered." (ECF No. 8 at 4 n.2.)
Here, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report.
Therefore, because the court has no personal jurisdiction
over Defendants, the court agrees that the proper venue for
Plaintiffs Complaint is the United States District Court of
reasons above, the court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8).
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
IS SO ORDERED.
 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at
the Federal Correctional Institution located in
Bennettsville, South ...