Hooks v. Houston County Jail et al (INMATE2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Emmanuel Quiten Hooks; it is the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that: 1) Plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 2) The Houston County Jail be dismissed as a party to this complaint; and 3) This case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 10/9/2008. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 9/26/08. (vma, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION ____________________________ E M M A N U E L QUITEN HOOKS P l a in tif f , v. H O U S T O N COUNTY JAIL, et al., * * * * 1:08-CV-776-TMH (WO)
D e f e n d a n ts . * _______________________________
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P la in tif f is an inmate incarcerated at the Houston County Jail located in Dothan, A la b a m a . He filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on September 19, 2008. He complains that D e f en d a n ts have failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care and tre a tm e n t. Among the named defendants is the Houston County Jail. Upon review of the c o m p lain t, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). D IS C U S S IO N The Houston County Jail is not a legal entity and, therefore, is not subject to suit or lia b ility under § 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11 th Cir. 1992). In light o f the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against this defendant should be d is m is s e d . Id.
C O N C L U SIO N A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . Plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail be DISMISSED with prejudice p rio r to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 2 . The Houston County Jail be DISMISSED as a party to this complaint; and 3 . This case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the u n d e rs ig n e d for additional proceedings. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before October 9, 2008. Any objections filed must specifically i d e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. F r iv o lo u s , conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The p a rtie s are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr o r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of
P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 26 th day of September 2008.
/s / Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E 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?