Filed: Jun. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2012
Summary: RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Chief Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, Nathan Brown ["Brown"], an indigent state inmate, complains that he contracted tuberculosis during his previous confinement at the Montgomery County Detention Facility. Brown names this facility as a defendant in this cause of action. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery County Detention Facility are
Summary: RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Chief Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, Nathan Brown ["Brown"], an indigent state inmate, complains that he contracted tuberculosis during his previous confinement at the Montgomery County Detention Facility. Brown names this facility as a defendant in this cause of action. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery County Detention Facility are ..
More
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Chief Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Nathan Brown ["Brown"], an indigent state inmate, complains that he contracted tuberculosis during his previous confinement at the Montgomery County Detention Facility. Brown names this facility as a defendant in this cause of action.
Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery County Detention Facility are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1
II. DISCUSSION
A county jail is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under section 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery County Detention Facility are due to be dismissed as frivolous in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Id.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. The plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery County Detention Facility be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. The Montgomery County Detention Facility be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action.
3. This case with respect to the plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before June 20, 2012, the parties may file objections to this 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 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.
