Hartman v. Greg Ward, Sheriff, et al (INMATE2)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Kevin Neil Hartman that Plaintiff's claims against the Geneva County Jail be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and tha t this party be dismissed as a defendant to this complaint; It is further the Recommendation of the Mag. Judge that this case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 8/1/2005. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 7/19/05. (vmc, )

Download PDF
Hartman v. Greg Ward, Sheriff, et al (INMATE2) Doc. 3 Case 1:05-cv-00645-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 07/19/2005 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAM A SOUT HERN DIVISION _______________________________ KEVIN NEIL HARTM AN Plaint iff, v. GENEVA COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendant s. _______________________________ * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-645-F WO * * RECO MMENDATIO N OF THE MAGIS TRATE JUDGE Plaint iff, an inmate incarcerated at t h e G e neva County Jail, filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 act ion on July 13, 2005. He complains that he is being denied adequate medical care at the G e n e v a County Jail. Plaintiff names the Geneva County Jail, Sheriff Greg Ward, and Jailers M iss M arily n and Donald Weeks as defendants. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Geneva Count y Jail prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). DIS CUS S IO N The Geneva County Jail is not a legal entity and, therefore, is not subject to suit or liabil i t y under 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:05-cv-00645-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 07/19/2005 Page 2 of 3 t he foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims agains t t h e G eneva County Jail are due to be dismissed. Id. CONCLUS IO N Accordingly , it is t he RECOM M ENDAT ION of the M agist rat e Judge that Plaintiff's claims against the Geneva Count y Jail be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant t o the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and that this party be dismissed as a defendant to this complaint. It is further the Recommendation of the M agist r a t e Judge that t his case with res p e c t t o the remaining defendants be referred back to the undersigned for addit ional proceedings. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendat i o n on or before August 1, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically Frivolous, ident ify the findings in the M agist rat e Judge's Recommendation objected to. conclusive or general object i o n s w i l l not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of t h e court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file w r it t en objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in t he M agist rat e Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the Dist rict Court of issues covered in t h e report and shall bar the party from attacking on 2 Case 1:05-cv-00645-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 07/19/2005 Page 3 of 3 ap p eal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the Dis t rict Court except upon ground s of p l a i n error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Secur i t i e s , Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v . City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decis i o n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. DONE, this 19th day of July, 2005. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNIT ED STATES M AGIST RAT E JUDGE 3

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?