Vaughn v. Scroggins et al (INMATE2)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Anthony Keith Vaughn, it is the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that Plaintiff's claims against the Lee Co Justice Center be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pu rsuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); It is further the Recommendaiton of the Mag Judge that this case be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 12/20/2006. Signed by Judge Wallace Capel Jr. on 12/1/06. (vma, )

Vaughn v. Scroggins et al (INMATE2)

Doc. 5

Case 3:06-cv-01048-WC

Document 5

Filed 12/01/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION ______________________________ A N T H O N Y KEITH VAUGHN P l a i n t if f , v. O F F IC E R SCROGGINS, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ______________________________ * * * * * 3:06-CV-1048-MHT (WO)

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P la in tiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Lee County Detention Facility in Opelika, A la b a m a , filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on November 21, 2006. He alleges that D e fe n d a n ts subjected him to excessive force and then failed to provide him with adequate m e d ic a l care for the injuries he sustained. Plaintiff names as one of the defendants the Lee C o u n ty Justice Center. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of P la in tiff's claims against the Justice Center prior to service of process is appropriate under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1

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 r e q u ir e s the court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process, regardless of the payment o f a filing fee, if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which r e lie f 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).

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-01048-WC

Document 5

Filed 12/01/2006

Page 2 of 3

D IS C U S S IO N Plaintiff names the Lee County Justice Center as a defendant to this cause of action. A county facility 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 c o n c lu d e s that Plaintiff's claims against the Lee County Justice Center are due to be d is m is s e d . Id. CONCLUSION A c c o rd in g ly , it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's c la im s against the Lee County Justice Center be DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service o f process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It is further the R E C O M M E N D A T IO N of the Magistrate Judge that this case be referred back to the u n d e r s ig n e d for further proceedings. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before December 20 , 2006. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party is objecting. F r iv o lo u s , conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The p a rtie s are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District 2

Case 3:06-cv-01048-WC

Document 5

Filed 12/01/2006

Page 3 of 3

C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual fin d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr o 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 P r ic 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 S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 1 st day of December, 2006.

/ s / Wallace Capel, Jr. W A L L A C E CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3