Hicks v. Prison Health Services et al (INMATE1)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Charles Hicks, itis the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that: 1) The plaintiff's claim against the Staton Corr Fac be dismissed prior to service of process as further set out in or der; 2) This correctional facility be dismissed as a dft in this cause of action; 3) This case, with respect to the plaintiff's claim against the remaining dfts, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 8/6/2007. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/24/07. (vma, )

Download PDF
Hicks v. Prison Health Services et al (INMATE1) Doc. 4 Case 2:07-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION CHARLES HICKS, #246241, Plaintiff, v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:07-CV-668-WHA [WO] RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, Charles Hicks ["Hicks"], a state inmate and frequent litigant in this court, asserts that medical personnel denied him adequate treatment for a blockage in his left leg on July 12, 2007, during his incarceration at the Staton Correctional Facility. Hicks names the Staton Correctional Facility as a defendant in this cause of action. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of the Staton Correctional Facility as a defendant in this cause of action 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 the plaintiff's claim against the Staton Correctional Facility is due to be summarily dismissed. Id. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 3 CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1. The plaintiff's claim against the Staton Correctional Facility 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 the plaintiff's claim against the remaining defendants, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before August 6, 2007 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. 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 2 Case 2:07-cv-00668-WHA-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 3 of 3 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 24th day of July, 2007. /s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY CHIEF UNITED 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?