Gordon v. Elmore County Jail et al (INMATE1)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Rance Freeman Gordon that: 1. The plaintiff's claims against the Elmore County Jail be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i ). 2. The Elmore County Jail be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action. 3. This case, with respect to the plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 11/8/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/27/2005. (dmn)

Gordon v. Elmore County Jail et al (INMATE1)

Doc. 4

Case 2:05-cv-01021-WKW-CSC

Document 4

Filed 10/27/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION R A N C E FREEMAN GORDON, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C I V I L ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-1021-T [WO]

E L M O R E COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Rance Freeman Gordon ["Gordon"], a c o u n ty inmate, challenges actions taken against him at the Elmore County Jail. Upon review o f the complaint, the court concludes that the Elmore County Jail should be dismissed from th is cause of action prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1 DISCUSSION T h e plaintiff names the Elmore County Jail as a defendant in this cause of action. A c o u n ty jail is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under section 1983. Cf. Dean v. B a r b e r, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened in ac c o rd a n c e with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court to d is mis s a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process, regardless of the payment of a filing fee, if it determines tha t the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary d am ag es from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-01021-WKW-CSC

Document 4

Filed 10/27/2005

Page 2 of 3

th a t Gordon's claims against the Elmore County Jail are due to be dismissed. Id. CONCLUSION A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . The plaintiff's claims against the Elmore County Jail be dismissed prior to service o f process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 2. The Elmore County Jail be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action. 3 . This case, with respect to the plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants, b e referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before November 8, 2005 the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a i lu r e to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D istrict Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 2

Case 2:05-cv-01021-WKW-CSC

Document 4

Filed 10/27/2005

Page 3 of 3

3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), 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. D o n e this 27 th day of October, 2005.

/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3