Bennefield v. Bullock State Prison et al (INMATE1)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that: 1. The plaintiff's claims against Bullock State Prison be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 2. This correctional facility be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action; 3. This case, with respect to defendants O'Hara and Morris, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 4/25/2006. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 4/12/2006. (cc, )

Bennefield v. Bullock State Prison et al (INMATE1)

Doc. 5

Case 2:06-cv-00307-MEF-SRW

Document 5

Filed 04/12/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JOSEPH BENNEFIELD, #235865, Plaintiff, v. BULLOCK STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-307-MEF ) [WO] ) ) ) )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Joseph Bennefield ["Bennefield"], a state inmate, asserts that correctional officers subjected him to the use of excessive force during at the Bullock County Correctional Facility. The plaintiff names the Bullock State Prison as a defendant in this cause of action. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of Bennefield's claims against Bullock State Prison prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). DISCUSSION A state prison facility is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Bennefield's claims against Bullock State Prison are

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-00307-MEF-SRW

Document 5

Filed 04/12/2006

Page 2 of 3

due to be dismissed. Id. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1. The plaintiff's claims against Bullock State Prison be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 2. This correctional facility be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action. 3. This case, with respect to defendants O'Hara and Morris, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before April 25, 2006 the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. Any objections filed must clearly identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 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 advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

2

Case 2:06-cv-00307-MEF-SRW

Document 5

Filed 04/12/2006

Page 3 of 3

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 Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. DONE, this 12th day of April, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3