Bailey v. Sgt. Bonnin, et al (INMATE1)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by James William Bailey, IV that the plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Houst on County Jail be dismissed from this cause of action. The remaining claims for relief against the individual defendants be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 5/23/2005. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 5/9/2005. (dmn) [Modified on 5/9/2005 to reflect that a copy was mailed to the Attorney General for the State of Alabama and General Counsel for the Alabama Department of Corrections.-DMN]
Bailey v. Sgt. Bonnin, et al (INMATE1)
Page 1 of 3
I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N D I V IS IO N J A M E S WILLIAM BAILEY, IV, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CI V I L ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-419-T WO
HO US TO N COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
R E C O M M E N D A TI O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which the plaintiff, a county inmate, challenges the conditions of confinement to which he is subjected in the Houston County Jail. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claims against t h e Houston County Jail be dismissed from this cause of action prior to service of process in accordan ce with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 1 D I SC U S S I O N I. The Houston County Jail T h e plaintiff names the Houston County Jail as a defendant in this cause of action. A county jail is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under section 1983. Cf. Dean v.
A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint
s c r e e n e d in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires t h e court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action or any claim therein prior to service of process if it determines t h a t the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks m o n e t a r y damages from a defendant who is imm u n e from such relief. 28 U . S . C . § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
Page 2 of 3
B a r b e r, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes t h a t the plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail are due to be dismissed under the pr ovisions of 28 U. S . C . § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U . S. 319 (1989). 2 C O N C L U S IO N Ac cord ingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . The plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail be dismissed with prejudice pursuan t to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 2 . The Houston County Jail be dismissed from this cause of action. 3 . The remaining claims for relief against the individual defendants be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before May 23, 2005 the parties shall file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a t i o n. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the
M agistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised t h a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M agistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the
A l t h o u g h Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to § 1915(e)(2),
t h e analysis contained therein remains applicable to the directives of the present statute.
Page 3 of 3
D i s t r ic t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a t t ac k i n g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D i s t r ic t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.
W a i n w r i g h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 9 th day of May, 2005.
/ s / Delores R. Boyd D E L O R ES R. BOYD U N I TE D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?