Billingsley v. Abbett et al (INMATE 2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Lorenzo Neal Billingsley that Plaintiff's claims against the Tallapoosa Co. Jail be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and that this party be dismissed as a defendant to this complaint; It is further the Recommendation of the Mag. Judge that this case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 5/31/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 5/17/05. (vmc, )
Billingsley v. Abbett et al (INMATE 2)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION _______________________________ LORENZO NEAL BILLINGSLEY Plaintiff, v. JIMMY ABBETT, et al., Defendants. _______________________________ * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-428-F WO * *
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Tallapoosa County Jail located Dadeville, Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 9, 2005. He complains that he is being denied adequate medical care. The Tallapoosa County Jail is one of the named defendants. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Tallapoosa County Jail prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). DISCUSSION The Tallapoosa County Jail is not a legal entity and, therefore, is not subject to suit or liability under § 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against the Tallapoosa County Jail are due to be dismissed. Id.
Page 2 of 3
CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's claims against the Tallapoosa County Jail be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and that this party be dismissed as a defendant to this complaint. It is further the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that this case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before May 31, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically
identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. 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 recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report 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 2
Page 3 of 3
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done this 17th day of May, 2005.
/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY CHIEF 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?