Pugh v. Choctaw County, Alabama

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DEVIN BRANDIS PUGH, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 2:25-cv-26-RAH-SMD
)
CHOCTAW COUNTY, ALABAMA, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Devin Brandis Pugh (“Pugh”), who is proceeding pro se, filed this action
on January 3, 2025, against Defendant Choctaw County (“Choctaw County”) claiming in
conclusory fashion that Choctaw County lacks adequate public transportation. Compl.
(Doc. 2) pp. 51-54.1 As explained below, the undersigned recommends that this action be
dismissed without prejudice because this Court is not the appropriate or convenient venue
to hear the dispute.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), “[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a
case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of
justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”
“[A] district court may dismiss a suit sua sponte for lack of venue,” but the district court
must “first giv[e] the parties an opportunity to present their views on the issue.” Algodonera
De Las Cabezas, S.A. v. Am. Suisse Cap., Inc., 432 F.3d 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2005)
1 Pugh’s claims originally were filed as part of a complaint against more than thirty defendants. See Order
(Doc. 1); Compl. (Doc. 2). Citing grounds of improper joinder, the Court directed that the claims against
Choctaw County, Alabama, be severed and docketed as a new action. Order (Doc. 1).
Case 1:25-cv-00296-TFM-MU Doc# 19 Filed 06/26/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

2
(quoting Lipofsky v. N.Y. State Workers Comp. Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 1988)).
A magistrate judge’s report, to which the parties can file objections, creates a sufficient
opportunity to present these arguments. See Wilkinson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 622 F.
App’x 805, 808-809 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of
an action for improper venue where the magistrate judge’s report provided the plaintiff
with “notice” and an opportunity to present arguments in support of venue); Wells v. Cohen,
2023 WL 5358586 at *4 (M.D. Ala. June 23, 2023) report and recommendation adopted
2023 WL 5353350 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 21, 2023).
Here, all of the alleged conduct involving Choctaw County occurred in Choctaw
County, Alabama, see Compl. (Doc. 2) pp. 51-54, causing most—if not all—records and
witnesses relevant to the underlying dispute to be located in Choctaw County, Alabama.
Because Choctaw County, Alabama, is located within the geographical boundaries of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (see 28 U.S.C. § 81(a)(1)),
venue is neither proper nor convenient here in the Middle District of Alabama. See 28.
U.S.C. § 1391(b). Therefore, the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed
without prejudice so that Pugh may file the action, if he wishes, in the appropriate venue.
Accordingly, the undersigned Chief United States Magistrate Judge
RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a) for having been filed in an improper venue. Further, it is
ORDERED that all objections to this Recommendation must be filed no later than
July 10, 2025. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions
in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general
Case 1:25-cv-00296-TFM-MU Doc# 19 Filed 06/26/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

3
objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and
factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error
or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11TH CIR. R.
3-1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v.
City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
DONE this 26th day of June, 2025.
Stephen M. Doyle
CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00296-TFM-MU Doc# 19 Filed 06/26/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>