Francis v. Doctor Mullens
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN CECIL FRANCIS, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR MULLENS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:23-cv-0039 ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller, filed on January 17, 2024, recommending that this matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. (ECF No. 3.) The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has made an independent determination finding no error.1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 3, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia; it is further ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be provided to Cecil Francis via certified mail with the return receipt docketed in this case; and it is further 1 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_23-cv-00039/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_23-cv-00039-1.pdf
SHA-256 b5f51267d59a9673d9c9c146443a4cd6ba7fc32bf13e5471b9c7040674cdfe22
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-b5f51267d59a
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN CECIL FRANCIS, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR MULLENS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:23-cv-0039 ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller, filed on January 17, 2024, recommending that this matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. (ECF No. 3.) The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has made an independent determination finding no error.1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 3, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia; it is further ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be provided to Cecil Francis via certified mail with the return receipt docketed in this case; and it is further 1 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted). Case: 3:23-cv-00039-RAM-GAT Document #: 6 Filed: 04/13/26 Page 1 of 2 Francis. v. Mullens Case No. 3:23-cv-0039 Order ORDERED that following transfer, the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. Dated: April 13, 2026 /s/ Robert A. Molloy ROBERT A. MOLLOY Chief Judge Case: 3:23-cv-00039-RAM-GAT Document #: 6 Filed: 04/13/26 Page 2 of 2