JOLLY v. COLIN et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MAKETA S. JOLLY, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:26-cv-00030-JAW
)
JENNIFER B. COLIN and 	)
VERMONT OFFICE OF 	)
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 	)
)
Defendants 	)
RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL
In a largely inscrutable pro se complaint, Maketa S. Jolly makes several claims
against 	the 	Vermont 	Office 	of 	Professional 	Regulation 	and 	its 	director
Jennifer B. Colin. See ECF No. 1.
The obvious issue with Jolly’s complaint is that she fails to allege any facts
demonstrating that venue lies properly in the District of Maine. By all appearances,
Jolly is suing a Vermont state agency and its employee for events that took place
entirely outside of Maine. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (providing that a civil action
generally may be brought in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or “a judicial
district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred”).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this Court “shall dismiss” a case filed in the wrong
venue, unless it is in the interest of justice to transfer the case to a proper venue.
Case 2:26-cv-00030-JAW Document 6 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Because this case was filed in an obviously improper venue and there is no apparent
reason to believe that an injustice would result from dismissal as opposed to transfer,
I recommend that the Court DISMISS Jolly’s complaint without prejudice for
improper venue and DEEM MOOT any other pending motions. 	See Johnson v.
Christopher, 233 F. App’x 852, 854 (10th Cir. 2007) (affirming the dismissal of a
plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to section 1406(a) where “the suit was filed in such an
obviously improper venue” and there was “no reason to believe that an injustice
[would] result from the dismissal as opposed to a transfer by, say, operation of a
statute of limitations”).
Jolly did not provide any contact information with her complaint, and the
envelope it came in did not have a complete return address—indicating only that she
is located in Coatesville, Pennsylvania. 	Although it was Jolly’s responsibility to
provide her contact information, the Clerk’s Office shall attempt to notify her of this
recommended dismissal by emailing her a copy at maketa.s.jolly@emeraldjustice.com
and calling her at 610-515-5154, as that contact information was listed in her most
recent appeal to the Third Circuit (No. 23-1966).
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a Magistrate
Judge’s 	report 	or proposed 	findings 	or 	recommended 	decisions 	entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the District
Court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 	A responsive memorandum
shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
Case 2:26-cv-00030-JAW Document 6 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Court and to appeal the District Court’s
order.
Dated: January 21, 2026
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00030-JAW Document 6 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>