Love v. Strong et al (INMATE1)

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Dimitri Deonta Love 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 Strong and Frazier be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 8/8/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/25/2005. Copies provided to Alabama Department of Corrections and Alabama Attorney General.(dmn)

Love v. Strong et al (INMATE1)

Doc. 6

Case 3:05-cv-00671-MHT-CSC

Document 6

Filed 07/25/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION DIMITRI DEONTA LOVE, Plaintiff, v. TALLAPOOSA COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-671-T WO

RECOMMENDATION 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 at the Tallapoosa County Jail. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claims against the Tallapoosa County Jail should 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 DISCUSSION The 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. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claims against the Tallapoosa County Jail are due to be dismissed under
A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action or any claim therein prior to service of process if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-00671-MHT-CSC

Document 6

Filed 07/25/2005

Page 2 of 3

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).2 CONCLUSION Accordingly, 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 Strong and Frazier be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before August 8, 2005, the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 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 advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

Although Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to § 1915(e)(2), the analysis contained therein remains applicable to the directives of the present statute.

2

2

Case 3:05-cv-00671-MHT-CSC

Document 6

Filed 07/25/2005

Page 3 of 3

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 decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done this 25th day of July, 2005.

/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3