UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1305
DANA P. BRIGHAM; PATRICIA M. BRIGHAM,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
PATLA, STRAUS, ROBINSON & MOORE, P.A., a North Carolina
Professional Association; STEVEN I. GOLDSTEIN, Individually
and as Shareholder and/or Partner in and to Patla, Straus,
Robinson & Moore, P.A.; ROBERT A. FREEMAN, III, Individually
and as Shareholder and/or Partner in and to Patla, Straus,
Robinson & Moore, P.A.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00069-MR-DLH)
Submitted: December 7, 2016 Decided: December 16, 2016
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dana P. Brigham, Patricia M. Brigham, Appellants Pro Se. E.
Fitzgerald Parnell, III, Cynthia L. Van Horne, POYNER SPRUILL,
LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dana P. and Patricia M. Brigham sued the North Carolina law
firm of Patla, Straus, Robinson & Moore and its attorneys,
Steven I. Goldstein and Robert A. Freeman, in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida for legal
malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The Florida
district court transferred the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina after
finding that the Florida district court lacked personal
jurisdiction over the North Carolina defendants. The defendants
then moved to dismiss the action, and the Brighams moved to
retransfer the case to the Florida district court. The North
Carolina district court, adopting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge, refused to retransfer the case and granted the
defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The Brighams appealed, arguing that their amended complaint
established that the Florida district court had personal
jurisdiction over the North Carolina defendants, and therefore,
that this court should reverse the district court’s rulings and
retransfer the case to the Florida district court. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s order denying transfer of
venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for abuse of discretion. See
2
Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th
Cir. 1991). Although we do not have jurisdiction to review the
Florida district court’s order to transfer the action to the
North Carolina district court, we do have authority to review
the North Carolina district court’s refusal to transfer the case
back to Florida. See id. Under § 1404(a), a district court may
transfer a civil action to any other district for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of
justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying retransfer to the Florida district court
because neither convenience nor the interests of justice justify
retransfer. Moreover, the Brighams’ attempts to argue that the
Florida district court had personal jurisdiction over the North
Carolina Defendants impermissibly ask this court to review the
Florida district court’s order. See Brock, 933 F.2d at 1257.
Having found proper the district court’s denial of the
motion for retransfer of venue, we also affirm the district
court’s dismissal of the Brighams’ amended complaint. Our
review of the district court’s order confirms that the amended
complaint asserted time-barred claims.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4