Opinion
Civ. 24-cv-52-SE-AJ
05-10-2024
Stefano A. Renda v. Target Corp. d/b/a Target Stores
The question of whether a change of venue presents a nondispositive or dispositive matter for purposes of a magistrate judge's authority is not settled. See Ryan v. Demaria, No. 21-11158-NMG, 2022 WL 2400049, at *1 n.1 (D. Mass. Jan. 3, 2022) (comparing Cantley v. Radiancy, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01649-LJO-JLT, 2016 WL 4191889, at *6 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2016) (citations omitted) (“Because an order transferring venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not address the merits of the case, it is a nondispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).”) with Payton v. Saginaw Cnty. Jail, 743 F.Supp.2d 691, 693 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (concluding that magistrate judge did not have the authority to enter an order transferring venue)). Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the court has issued a report and recommendation.
ANDREA K. JOHNSTONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, plaintiff Stefano A. Renda has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against Target Corporation d/b/a Target Stores. Renda is a New Hampshire resident who used to live in Illinois. Renda alleges that Target is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Minnesota. The Complaint alleges that on February 24, 2022, Renda slipped and fell in a Target Store in Chicago and suffered “severe” spine and knee injuries, in circumstances Renda claims manifested negligence, rendering the corporation liable.
By Order dated February 29, 2024 (Doc. No. 3), plaintiff Stefano A. Renda was ordered to file, within 30 days, an amended complaint demonstrating that venue is proper in the District. Failure to do so, the court cautioned, could result in transfer to the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff having failed to respond to the court's Order, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that the district judge order this case transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the district court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010) . Any issues not preserved by such objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See Id. Failure to file any objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the district court's Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).