Ray v. Tallapoosa County Jail et al (INMATE1)(LEAD)

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that 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); that the Tallapoosa County Jail be dismissed from this cause of action; that the remaining claims for relief against defendants Abbett, McMichael and Moss be referred back to the magistrate judge for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 5/4/2005. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 4/21/2005. (cc, )

Download PDF
Ray v. Tallapoosa County Jail et al (INMATE1)(LEAD) Doc. 6 Case 3:05-cv-00353-MHT-DRB Document 6 Filed 04/21/2005 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 J A M IE RAY, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CI V I L ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-353-T WO TA LL AP OO SA COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. 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. 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-00353-MHT-DRB Document 6 Filed 04/21/2005 Page 2 of 3 B a r b e r, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes t h a t the plaintiff's claims against the Tallapoosa County Jail are due to be dismissed under t h 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 Abbett, McM i c h a e l and Moss be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before May 4, 2005 the parties shall file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a t i o n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the 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. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S . 319 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-00353-MHT-DRB Document 6 Filed 04/21/2005 Page 3 of 3 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 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 21st day of April, 2005. / s / Delores R. Boyd D E L O R ES R. BOYD U N I TE D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

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?