United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
J. Conrad, Jr. United States District Judge
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's
Motion to Transfer Venue to the Court of Federal Claims, or
in the Alternative, to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction (“Defendant's Motion”), (Doc.
No. 32), and the parties' associated briefs and exhibits;
the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation
(“M&R”), (Doc. No. 47), denying
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue and recommending
that this Court deny Defendant's alternative Motion to
Dismiss; Defendant's Objections thereto, (Doc. No. 49);
and Plaintiff's responsive briefing, (Doc. No. 50).
party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's statement of
the factual and procedural background of this case.
Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the
STANDARD OF REVIEW
district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters,
including motions to dismiss, to a magistrate judge for
“proposed findings of fact and recommendations.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). The Federal Magistrate
Act provides that “a district court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” Id. at §
636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).
district court has authority to assign non-dispositive
pretrial matters pending before the Court to a magistrate
judge to “hear and determine.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). When reviewing an objection to a magistrate
judge's order on a non-dispositive matter, the district
court must set aside or modify any portion of that order
which is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id.;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). An order transferring a case
to another district court is generally viewed as a
non-dispositive matter, and thus is reviewed under Rule
72(a). See Cadence Bank, N.A. v. Horry Props., LLC,
No. 2:09-cv-44, 2010 WL 4026392, at *2 n.4 (W.D. N.C. Oct.
13, 2010). A magistrate judge's order is contrary to law
if the judge failed to apply or misapplied statutes, case
law, or procedural rules. See Catskill Dev. LLC v. Park
Place Entm't Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y.
filed an objection to the M&R's recommendation to
deny Defendant's alternative Motion to Dismiss. In
support of its objection, Defendant essentially makes two
arguments: (1) the Sixth Circuit's analysis in E.W.
Scripps Co. v. United States, 420 F.3d 589 (6th
Cir. 2005), and related cases erroneously interpreted 28
U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1); and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1)
only applies to refund-not overpayment-suits. The Court finds
both objections meritless and concludes that this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim.
The M&R correctly concluded that the weight of authority
provides that district courts have subject
matter jurisdiction over overpayment interest claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1).
U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) grants concurrent jurisdiction to
district courts and the Court of Federal Claims:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction,
concurrent with the United States Court of Federal Claims,
(1) Any civil action against the United States for the
recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been
erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any
penalty claimed to have been collected without authority or
any sum alleged to have been excessive or in ...