Williams v. Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility et al (Inmate 2)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by George Williams, Jr.; that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915 (e)(2)(B)(iii); Objections to R&R due by 5/9/2005. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 4/25/05. (vmc, )

Download PDF
Williams v. Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility et al (Inmate 2) Doc. 3 Case 2:05-cv-00368-ID-DRB Document 3 Filed 04/25/2005 Page 1 of 3 I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E RN DIVISION _______________________________ G E O R G E W I L L I A M S , JR., #146 146 Plaintiff, * * v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-368-D T A Y L O R HARDIN SECURE MEDICAL WO F A C IL IT Y and the STATE OF ALABAMA * DE PA RT M EN T OF CORRECTIONS, * Defendants. _______________________________ R E C O M M E N D A TI O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plain tiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility located in Union S p r i n g s Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action on April 21, 2005. He asserts that wh ile confined at the Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility in 1989 he was attacked and s u s t a in e d serious injuries. Plaintiff received a third operation in March 2005 stemming from th e injuries he received in the 1989 incident. As a result, Plaintiff requests that Taylor Ha rdin reimburse the State of Alabama/Alabama Department of Corrections for the three o p e r a t io n s and award him $3 million. Named as defendants are the Alabama Department of Co rrec tion s and Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility. Upon review of Plaintiff's allegations, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's comp laint prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).1 1 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 w i t h the provisions of 28 U . S . C . 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-00368-ID-DRB Document 3 Filed 04/25/2005 Page 2 of 3 D I SC U S S I O N Neither Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility nor the Alabama Department of C o r r e c t io n s is subject to suit or liability under 1983. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or its agencies, regardless of the nature of relief sought. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). In light of the foregoing, the court c o n c l u d e s that Plaintiff's complaint against the named defendants is due to be dismissed. Id; s e e also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). . CONCLUSION A c c o r d i n g l y , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the M agistrate Judge that Plaintiff's c o m p l a i n t be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). 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 t i o n on or before May 9, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify t h e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. 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 recommendations in the M agistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District requires the court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the c o m p l a in t 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). 2 Case 2:05-cv-00368-ID-DRB Document 3 Filed 04/25/2005 Page 3 of 3 Cou rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f i n d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e r r 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 i c h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c i s io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p t e m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e this 25th day of April, 2005. /s/ Delores R. Boyd D E L O R ES R. BOYD U N I TE D STATES MAGISTRATE 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?