Nichols v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Mag Judge that: (1) the plf's claims against the Alabama Dept of Corrections and Easterling Corr Fac be dismissed prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (2) the Alabama Dept of Corrections and Easterling Corr Fac be dismissed from this cause of action; (3) this case, with respect to the claims against Gwendolyn Mosley and Prison Health Care Services be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 8/7/2006. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 7/17/06. (djy, )

Nichols v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 2)

Doc. 5

Case 2:06-cv-00615-MEF-DRB

Document 5

Filed 07/17/2006

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 D Y JOE NICHOLS, #149910, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) ALAB AM A DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants )

C IV IL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-615-MEF [W O ]

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Randy Joe Nichols ["Nichols"], a state inmate, c h a lle n ge s the adequacy of medical treatment provided to him at the Easterling Correctional F a c i li ty . Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of the plaintiff's c laim s against the Alabama Department of Corrections and Easterling Correctional Facility p rio r to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 1 D IS C U S S IO N T h e law is well-settled that state agencies are absolutely immune from suit. Papasan v . Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986). Thus, the plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Department

1. A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-00615-MEF-DRB

Document 5

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 2 of 3

o f Corrections are frivolous as they are "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." N eitz k e v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 2 Additionally, Easterling Correctional F ac ility is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under section 1983. See Dean v. B a r b e r, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11 th Cir. 1992). The claims presented by the plaintiff against th e se defendants are therefore subject to summary dismissal pursuant to the directives of 28 U .S.C .§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). CONCLUSION A c c o rd in gly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1. The plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections and

E a ste rlin g Correctional Facility be dismissed prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 2 . The Alabama Department of Corrections and Easterling Correctional Facility be d ismissed from this cause of action. 3. This case, with respect to the claims against Gwendolyn Mosley and Prison Health C a r e Services be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before July 31, 2006 the parties shall file objections to the R e c o m m e n d atio n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a gis tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive
Although Neitzke interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the analysis contained therein remains applicable to the present statute.
2

2

Case 2:06-cv-00615-MEF-DRB

Document 5

Filed 07/17/2006

Page 3 of 3

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 ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a gis 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 kin 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 N ich o ls, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, e n banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit h a n d e d down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 17 th day of July, 2006.

/s / Delores R. Boyd D E LO R E S R. BOYD U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3