Bullock v. Bates et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1) Plf's claims against the Montgomery County Commissioners be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); 2) The M ontgomery County Commissioners be DISMISSED as dfts to this cause of action; and 3) This case with respect to Plf's claims against the remaining dfts be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 12/30/2008. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 12/17/2008. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ____________________________ J A M E S TIMOTHY BULLOCK # 0 0 0 6 , 4-C-16 P l a in tif f , v. D R . BATES OF Q.C.H.C., et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ____________________________ 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 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have fa iled to provide him with adequate medical care during his confinement in the Montgomery C o u n ty Detention Facility. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. Among th e named defendants are the Montgomery County Commissioners. Upon review of the c o m p lain t, the court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint against the Montgomery County C o m m is s io n e rs should be dismissed prior to service of process in accordance with the d irec tiv es of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii).1 * * * * * 2:08-CV-977-WKW (WO)

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, regardless of the payment of a filing fee, 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

I . DISCUSSION P la in tif f names the Montgomery County Commissioners as defendants. Although P la in tif f makes no specific allegations against the Montgomery County Commissioners, the la w is established that county commissioners cannot be held liable for actions undertaken d u rin g the daily operation of a county jail. Turquitt v. Jefferson County, Alabama, 137 F.3d 1 2 8 5 , 1289 (11 th Cir. 1998). Moreover, county commissioners are entitled to absolute im m u n ity under § 1983 for claims arising from the appropriation of funds for the m a in te n a n c e of a county jail. Woods v. Garner, 132 F.3d 1417, 1420 (11 th Cir. 1998) ("The b u d g e tary decisions made by defendants for funding the county--including the jail--are le g is la tiv e acts protected by legislative immunity."). Based on the foregoin, the court finds th a t Plaintiff's claims against the commissioners of Montgomery County are subject to s u m m a ry dismissal upon application of the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and ( i i i) . I I . CONCLUSION A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . Plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery County Commissioners be DISMISSED w ith prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii); 2 . The Montgomery County Commissioners be DISMISSED as defendants to this c a u se of action; and

2

3 . This case with respect to Plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants be re f e rr e d back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before December 30, 2008 the parties may file objections to th is Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or g e n e ra l objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that th is Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a i l u re 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 is tric t 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 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 17 th day of December 2008.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 3

U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4