Johnson v. Tallapoosa County Jail et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Michael Johnson, Jr.; that claims against Tallapoosa County Jail be dismissed with prejudice; that the Tallapoosa County Jail be dismissed from this cause of action; that claims against remaining defendants be referred back to the Mag. Judge for further proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 4/4/2005. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 3/16/05. (ajr, )

Johnson v. Tallapoosa County Jail et al (INMATE 1)

Doc. 3

Case 3:05-cv-00226-MEF-DRB

Document 3

Filed 03/16/2005

Page 1 of 3

I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION M ICH AE L JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. TA LL AP OO SA COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

3:05-C V-22 6-F

R E C O M M E N D A TI O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which the plaintiff, a county inmate, challenges the conditions of confinement to which he is subjected in the Tallapoosa County Jail. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claims against t h e Tallapoosa County Jail be dismissed from this cause of action prior to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 1 D I SC U S S I O N I. The Tallapoosa County Jail T h e plaintiff names the Tallapoosa County Jail as a defendant in this cause of action. A county jail is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under section 1983. Cf. Dean v. B a r b e r, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes

1

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint

s c r e e n e d in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires t h e court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action or any claim therein prior to service of process if it determines t h a t the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks m o n e t a r y damages from a defendant who is imm u n e from such relief. 28 U . S . C . § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-00226-MEF-DRB

Document 3

Filed 03/16/2005

Page 2 of 3

t h a t the plaintiff's claims against the Tallapoosa County Jail are due to be dismissed under th e provisions of 28 U. S . C . § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). (1989). 2 C O N C L U S IO N Ac cord ingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . The plaintiff's claims against the Tallapoosa County Jail be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 2 . The Tallapoosa County Jail be dismissed from this cause of action. 3 . The remaining claims for relief against defendants Abbott, McMichael and Moss be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation by M a r c h 28, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S . 319

M agistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised t h a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M agistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

2

A l t h o u g h Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to § 1915(e)(2),

t h e analysis contained therein remains applicable to the directives of the present statute.

2

Case 3:05-cv-00226-MEF-DRB

Document 3

Filed 03/16/2005

Page 3 of 3

D i s t r ic t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a t t ac k i n g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D i s t r ic t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

W a i n w r i g 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 d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 15th day of March, 2005.

/ s / Delores R. Boyd D E L O R ES R. BOYD U N I TE D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3