Duff v. Prison Health Services, Inc. et al (INMATE2)

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Antonio Rodregis Duff; that claims against Bullock County Correctional Facility be dismissed with prejudice prior to service pursuant to 28 1915 and this defendant be dismissed; Objections to R&R due by 8/2/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/20/05. (ajr, )

Duff v. Prison Health Services, Inc. et al (INMATE2)

Doc. 7

Case 2:05-cv-00627-MEF-CSC

Document 7

Filed 07/20/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _______________________________ ANTONIO RODREGIS DUFF, #186 551 Plaintiff, v. BULLOCK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., Defendants. _______________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Bullock County Correctional Facility located in Union Springs, Alabama, files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining that he is being denied adequate medical care. Plaintiff names the Bullock County Correctional Facility as a defendant. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Bullock County Correctional Facility prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). DISCUSSION The Bullock County Correctional Facility is not 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 concludes that Plaintiff's claims against the * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-627-F (WO) * * *

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-00627-MEF-CSC

Document 7

Filed 07/20/2005

Page 2 of 3

Bullock County Correctional Facility are due to be dismissed. Id. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's claims against the Bullock County Correctional Facility be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 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 Magistrate Judge that this case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before August 2, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of 2

Case 2:05-cv-00627-MEF-CSC

Document 7

Filed 07/20/2005

Page 3 of 3

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done this 20th day of July, 2005.

/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3