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