Johnson v. Judge Bailey et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
WHEELING DIVISION
MATHIS JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-00188
JUDGE BAILEY, et al.,
Defendants.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Change of Venue. (ECF
No. 9). This matter is assigned to the Honorable Frank W. Volk, Chief United States
District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, by designation of the Chief
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (ECF No. 6). It is
referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge by order of designation for
submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(f). (ECF No. 10).
For the reasons that follow, the undersigned FINDS that the motion is moot and,
alternatively, that Plaintiff has failed to establish that transfer is warranted. Accordingly,
the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY the motion.
I. 	Procedural Background
Plaintiff initiated this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and names
numerous defendants, including judicial officers of the Northern District of West
Virginia. (ECF No. 1 at 1–5). Plaintiff subsequently filed a handwritten motion requesting
Case 5:25-cv-00188-FWV-JKR Document 18 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
that this case be transferred to another venue on the ground that judges of this district
are named as defendants. (ECF No. 9 at 1). No response has been filed.
After the filing of Plaintiff’s motion, the Chief Judge of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit designated the Honorable Frank W. Volk, Chief United
States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, to preside over this
matter. (ECF No. 6). Thereafter, the undersigned was designated to perform judicial
duties in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(f). (ECF No. 10).
II. 	Analysis
Plaintiff seeks transfer of this action based upon the fact that certain judges of this
district are named as defendants. (ECF No. 9 at 1). However, as a result of the subsequent
designations, no judicial officer of the Northern District of West Virginia who is a named
defendant is presiding over this case. (ECF Nos. 6, 10). Accordingly, the undersigned
FINDS that Plaintiff’s request for transfer is MOOT. See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d
281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007).
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that the motion is not moot, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that transfer is appropriate. A motion to transfer venue is governed by 28
U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), and the burden rests with the moving party to show that
transfer is warranted. Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir.
1991). Given the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his filings are liberally construed.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972). However, even under that standard,
Plaintiff does not assert a basis to transfer the case. For instance, he does not contend that
venue is improper in the district, nor does he address the convenience of the parties or
witnesses or the interest of justice.
Case 5:25-cv-00188-FWV-JKR Document 18 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The designation of an out-of-district judicial officer is an appropriate mechanism
to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice when local judges are named as
defendants and does not require transfer of venue. See, e.g., United States v. Nettles, 394
F.3d 1001, 1002 (7th Cir. 2005); Ignacio v. Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, the undersigned
FINDS that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
III. 	Proposal and Recommendations
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS
that the District Court DENY, as moot, Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue, (ECF No.
9), and, alternatively, DENY the motion on the merits.
The parties are notified that this “Proposed Findings and Recommendations” is
hereby FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable Frank W. Volk, Chief
United States District Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rules 6(d) and 72(b),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen days (filing of objections)
and three days (if received by mail) from the date of filing this “Proposed Findings and
Recommendations” within which to file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written
objections identifying the portions of the “Proposed Findings and Recommendations” to
which objection is made and the basis of such objection. Extension of this time period
may be granted by Chief Judge Volk for good cause shown.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de
novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of
Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727
Case 5:25-cv-00188-FWV-JKR Document 18 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Copies of such objections shall be provided to opposing parties,
Chief Judge Volk, and Magistrate Judge Reeder.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this “Proposed Findings and
Recommendations” to Plaintiff.
FILED: February 17, 2026
Case 5:25-cv-00188-FWV-JKR Document 18 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>