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, )

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