Smith v. Lowndes County Jail (INMATE1)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this case be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Objections to R&R due by 6/4/2009. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 5/22/09. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL SMITH, Plaintiff, v. LOWNDES COUNTY JAIL, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:09-CV-455-WHA [WO]
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Michael Smith ["Smith"], an indigent county inmate, challenges his access to medical personnel and the conditions of confinement to which he is subjected at the Lowndes County Jail. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of this case prior to service of process is appropriate pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1 DISCUSSION Smith names the Lowndes County Jail as the sole defendant in this cause of action. A county jail is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under section 1983.
The court granted Smith leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this cause of action. Court Doc. No. 3. A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis will have his complaint screened under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which requires this 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).
See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that the present complaint against the Lowndes County Jail is due to be summarily dismissed. Id. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It is further ORDERED that on or before June 4, 2009 the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically 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 banc), 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. Done this 22nd day of May, 2009.
/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?