ORDER

RICHARD L. VOORHEES, District Judge.

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant's timely filed objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (hereinafter, the "Objection"). [Doc. No. 14]. Defendant objects to the September 28, 2015 Order of U.S. Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler, which denies Defendant Global Experience Specialists, Inc., f/k/a GES Exposition Services, Inc.'s Motion to Change Venue. [Doc. No. 13]. For the reasons that follow, the Defendant's Objection is hereby OVERRULED and Judge Keesler's Order is hereby AFFIRMED.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court may, in its discretion, assign to a magistrate judge non-dispositive matters pending before the court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the Court "must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Under this standard, "a finding is `clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court . . . is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." High Voltage Beverages, L.L.C. v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:08-CV-367, 2010 WL 2342458, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 8, 2010) (citing Walton v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 160, 173-74 (4th Cir. 2006)). "If a magistrate judge's order is contrary to law then the judge must have failed to apply or misapplied statutes, case law, or procedural rules." Miceli v. KBRG of Statesville, L.L.C., 2008 WL 2945451, at *1 (W.D.N.C. July 24, 2008) (Voorhees, J.) (citing Catskill Dev. L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm't Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)).

II. DISCUSSION

Applying the governing standard, the Court affirms the September 28, 2015 Order and overrules Defendant's Objections. A fair reading of Judge Keesler's Order confirms that he conducted a thorough review of the record and applied the correct legal standard. Despite Defendant's arguments to the contrary, the Defendant failed to meet its "heavy burden"1 of establishing that the proposed transfer of venue is consistent with and, in fact, warranted pursuant to the relevant factors.2 See Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 32 (1988). Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that a court's decision to transfer or not transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is largely discretionary.3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ("For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district court or division where it might have been brought") (emphasis supplied); Landers v. Dawson Const. Plant Ltd., 201 F.3d 436, 1999 WL 991419, *2 (4th Cir. 1999) ("[T]he district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to transfer to another district."); 3A Composites USA, Inc. v. United Indus., Inc., No. 5:13-CV-83-RLV, 2014 WL 1471075, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 2014) (Voorhees, J.).

Chiefly, Defendant objects that Magistrate Judge Keesler erred by failing to address Defendant's alternative argument that, if Defendant is a statutorily-defined carrier, then venue should be transferred to the judicial district where the loss that is the subject of this lawsuit purportedly occurred, pursuant to the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706(d)(2). [Doc. No. 14] at pp. 3-4. Even if Defendant's characterization of Magistrate Judge Keesler's Order were correct,4 Defendant's objection is rejected. The plain language of the Carmack Amendment does not support Defendant's argument that venue is proper only in the Northern District of Illinois.5 "Statutory construction must begin with the language of the statute. To do otherwise would assume Congress does not express its intent in the words of statutes . . ., an idea that hopefully all will find unpalatable." Kofa v. U.S. I.N.S., 60 F.3d 1084, 1088 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted). When the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, "judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning, in all but the most extraordinary circumstance, is finished." Ramey v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Program, 326 F.3d 474, 476 (4th Cir. 2003).

The Carmack Amendment explicitly states that "[a] civil action under this section may be brought against the carrier alleged to have caused the loss or damage, in the judicial district in which such loss or damage is alleged to have occurred." 49 U.S.C. § 14706(d)(2) (emphasis added). The Court reads this statute as permissive in nature given that, as Defendant concedes, the statute uses the singular and discretionary term "may," rather than "shall" or "must," or even "may" modified by the limiting term "only." Id. This indicates that a district court maintains its discretion to grant or deny a defendant's motion to change venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, irrespective of whether Defendant is or is not in fact a relevant "carrier." See [Doc. No. 14] at pp. 3-4 (refusing to concede whether it is to be considered a relevant "carrier" for purposes of the Carmack Amendment). Significantly, Defendant has not pointed this Court to any authority which declares that § 14706's venue provision is mandatory.

To be sure, the Court's reading of the statute is bolstered by another portion of the Carmack Amendment, which pertains to interstate rail carriers. There, the statute provides:

A civil action under this section may only be brought —

49 U.S.C. § 11706(d)(2)(A) (emphasis added). The contrast between § 11706's limiting language and § 14706's permissive language is apparent to more than just the keenest and most observant of readers. Clearly, as Plaintiff argues, § 11706 demonstrates that Congress did not intend to limit proper venue under § 14706(d)(2) narrowly and only to the judicial district where the loss at issue occurred. Had it desired that outcome, it would have drafted and passed § 14706 with language similar to that found in § 11706. This Court must take Congress at its word. See Kofa, 60 F.3d at 1088; see also Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 461-62 (2002).

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Keesler's Order does not commit a clear error and is not contrary to law on this issue. The Defendant's objection as to this issue is, therefore, OVERRULED.

Next, Defendant objects that Judge Keesler erred in his analysis of the factors related to transfer of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and arrives at clearly erroneous conclusions that are contrary to the law. [Doc. No. 14] at p. 4. Defendant's objections are, as Plaintiff points out, largely an attempt to remedy its initially deficient motion, which Judge Keesler rightly noted failed to address many of the factors the Court must apply when analyzing a motion to transfer venue. [Doc. No. 13] at pp. 4-5; [Doc. No. 15] at p. 1. In the Court's view, Judge Keesler thoroughly examined the parties' arguments and the factors relevant to a motion to transfer venue. Thus, Judge Keesler correctly ruled that Defendant did not meet its heavy burden by filing a one-page discussion of the factors relevant to the issue of venue transfer. [Doc. No. 10-1] at pp. 4-5. Accordingly, the Defendant's objection as to this issue is similarly OVERRULED.

In conclusion, there is no apparent clear error. Likewise, the Court is not persuaded that Judge Keesler's analysis is contrary to law. Consequently, the September 2015 Order denying Defendant's Motion to Change Venue is hereby AFFIRMED and Defendant's Objection is OVERRULED.

SO ORDERED.