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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?