jury, Appellants’ 1st Br. at 36. They specifically suggest the Northern District of Ohio because that district “is more liberal in interpreting minority cases.” Id. Counsel for the defendants conceded at oral argument that the Smiths’ status as plaintiffs did not preclude them from seeking a change of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As this Court explained in Philip Carey Manufacturing Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d 782 (6th Cir.1961), “[t]he right to a transfer under [28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ] is available to a plaintiff as well as a defendant. A plaintiff is not bound by his choice of forums, if he later discovers that there are good reasons for transfer.” Id. at 784; accord 15 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3844 (3d ed.1989) (<HOLDING>). Although the Smiths were not precluded from
holding that in reviewing a district courts decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo the decision can be affirmed on any ground that finds support in the record including an alternate ground recognizing that the district courts decision to termi nate parental rights will be upheld by this court if it is supported by substantial evidence recognizing that federal district courts have the authority to grant a remedy if the refusal to file a substantial assistance motion was based on an unconstitutional motive recognizing the very substantial authority including this courts decision in taylor for the proposition that a motion  may be made by the plaintiff holding that plaintiff failed to adequately brief an issue where he failed to cite any legal authority for the proposition