Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal Cecil Francis v. Doctor Mullens
Routine Enforcement Amended Final

Cecil Francis v. Doctor Mullens

Favicon for www.courtlistener.com US District Court DVI Docket Feed
Filed
Detected
Email

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands approved and adopted Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller's Report and Recommendation filed January 17, 2024, recommending transfer of Case No. 3:23-cv-0039 to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and found no error in the Magistrate Judge's determination. The Clerk of Court is ordered to transfer the case and provide certified mail notice to plaintiff Cecil Francis, and the case is ordered closed following transfer.

Published by D.V.I. on courtlistener.com . Detected, standardized, and enriched by GovPing. Review our methodology and editorial standards .

About this source

GovPing monitors US District Court DVI Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.

What changed

The District Court of the Virgin Islands approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller on January 17, 2024, which recommended transferring the civil action to the Western District of Virginia. The Court conducted a de novo review of the record as required under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and found no error in the Magistrate Judge's determination. The Court's order directs the Clerk of Court to transfer the case and provide certified mail notice to plaintiff Cecil Francis with return receipt docketed, and the case is ordered closed following transfer.

The transfer order represents a routine procedural judicial action without substantive compliance implications for external parties. The Court's adoption of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation without modification indicates agreement with the venue transfer rationale under the applicable transfer standards. Parties involved in related litigation before the District Court of the Virgin Islands should note the standard for transfer recommendations and the Court's de novo review process under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

Archived snapshot

Apr 24, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project
, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Cecil Francis v. Doctor Mullens

District Court, Virgin Islands

Trial Court Document

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

CECIL FRANCIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 3:23-cv-0039
v. )
)
DOCTOR MULLENS, )
)
Defendant. )
)
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
1
determOinRaDtiEonR EfiDnd ing no error. Accordingly, it is hereby
APPROVED ADthOaPt TthEeD Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 3, is
ORDE aRnEdD as an Order of this CTouRrAt NasS FifE fRully set forth hereinU;n itit iesd fu Srttahteers
District Court for tthhaet Wthees Ctelerrnk D oifs tCroicutr to fs hVairllg inia this case to the
ORDERED ; it is further
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
See Hill v. Barnacle
1
, 655 Fed. Appx. 14E2l,m 1e4n8d (o3rdf GCriar.f i2c0a1, I6n)c (. ovp. iDn.iSn. gA tmheart itchae, Idnics.trict 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 , 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
OCardsee rN o. 3:23-cv-0039
Page 2 ofO 2R DERED CLOSE

Dated: that follow ing tra nsfer, t he Clerk ofR Coobuerrtt sAh. aMllo lloy this c ase.
ROBERT A. MOLLOY
April 1 3, 2026 /Csh/i ef Judge

Get daily alerts for US District Court DVI Docket Feed

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from D.V.I..

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
D.V.I.
Filed
April 13th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Branch
Judicial
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Minor
Document ID
3:23-cv-00039
Docket
3:23-cv-00039

Who this affects

Applies to
Criminal defendants
Industry sector
9211 Government & Public Administration
Activity scope
Civil case transfer Venue determination
Geographic scope
US-VI US-VI

Taxonomy

Primary area
Judicial Administration
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Judicial Administration

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when US District Court DVI Docket Feed publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!