Hooks v. Houston County Jail et al (INMATE2)

Filing 5

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

2

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

3