Jones v. Jay Jones, et al (INMATE2)

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 5 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Jeffery B. Jones, it is the Recommendation of the Mag. Judge that: 1) Pla's claims against "Jurisdiction System" be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process p ursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 2) Jurisdiction System be dismissed as a party to this complaint; and 3) This case with respect to the remaining dfts be referred back to the undersigned for add. proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 3/20/2006. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 3/14/06. (vma, )

Jones v. Jay Jones, et al (INMATE2)

Doc. 6

Case 3:06-cv-00178-MEF-DRB

Document 6

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A ST E R N DIVISION _______________________________ J E F F E R Y B. JONES P l a i n t if f , v. JU R ISD IC T IO N SYSTEM, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ * * * * * 3:06-CV-178-MEF (W O )

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P lain tiff is an inmate incarcerated in the Lee County Detention Center located in O p e lika , Alabama. He complains that his constitutional rights are being violated at the jail b e c au s e he is subject to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Among the named d e fe n d a n ts is "Jurisdiction System." Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that d ism iss a l of Plaintiff's claims against "Jurisdiction System" prior to service of process is ap p rop riate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). D IS C U S S IO N "Jurisdiction System" is not a legal entity and, therefore, is not subject to suit or liab ility under § 1983. Cf. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11 th Cir. 1992); see also

Moity v. Louisiana State Bar Association, 414 F. Supp. 180, 182 (E.D. La. 1976), aff'd, 537 F.2d 1141 (5th Cir. 1976) (courts are not persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against this

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-00178-MEF-DRB

Document 6

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 2 of 3

d efe n d an t should be dismissed. Id. CONCLUSION A c c o rd in gly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . Plaintiff's claims against "Jurisdiction System" be DISMISSED with prejudice p rio r to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 2 . "Jurisdiction System" be DISMISSED as a party to this complaint; and 3 . This case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the u n d ersign e d for additional 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 atio n on or before March 20, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v is e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a gis 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 fin d in gs in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain erro 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 2

Case 3:06-cv-00178-MEF-DRB

Document 6

Filed 03/14/2006

Page 3 of 3

P ric 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 Se p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 14 th day of March 2006. /s / Delores R. Boyd D E LO R E S R. BOYD U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3