Renda v. Target Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR
Stefano A. Renda
v. Civ. No. 24-cv-52-SE-AJ
Target Corp. d/b/a Target Stores
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1
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.
1 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.
Case 1:24-cv-00052-SE-AJ Document 4 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 2

2
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).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 12, 2024
cc: Stefano A. Renda, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00052-SE-AJ Document 4 Filed 04/12/24 Page 2 of 2