Jones v. Coffee County Sheriff's Department et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 5

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: (1) plaintiff's claims against the Coffee County Sheriff's Department be dismissed with prejudice prior to service; (2) the Coffee County Sheriff's Department be dismissed as a party to this cause of action; (3) this case, with respect to the claims against the remaining defendants be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 12/14/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 11/30/09. (sl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION ____________________________ R O C K Y JONES P l a in tif f , v. C O F F E E COUNTY SHERIFF'S D E P A R T M E N T , 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 complains that Defendants su b jec ted him to excessive force during an arrest. Plaintiff names as one of the defendants th e Coffee County Sheriff's Department. U p o n review of the complaint, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against the C o f f ee County Sheriff's Department are due to be dismissed prior to service pursuant to the p rov isio n s of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). D IS C U S S IO N T h e Coffee County Sheriff's Department is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability u n d e r § 1983. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11 th Cir. 1992). In light of the fo reg o ing , the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims for relief against this defendant are * * * * * 2:09-CV-1070-ID (WO)

s u b je c t to dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Id. CONCLUSION A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . Plaintiff's claims against the Coffee County Sheriff's Department be DISMISSED w ith prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) ; 2 . The Coffee County Sheriff's Department be DISMISSED as a party to this cause o f action; and 3. This case, with respect to the claims against the remaining defendants, be referred b a c k to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before December 14, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. F r iv o lo u s , conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The p a rtie s are advised that 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 recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

2

C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr o r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 30 th day of November 2009.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3