Filed: Aug. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2015
Summary: RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE WALLACE CAPEL, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . I. INTRODUCTION This 42 U.S.C. 1983 action is before the court on a complaint filed by Shannon Jackson ("Jackson"), an indigent inmate, currently incarcerated at the Draper Correctional Facility. In this case, Jackson complains that on April 12, 2015, while confined at the Staton Correctional Facility, inmate Thomas Young assaulted him. Jackson further alleges that defendants Fair, Daniels, and Burt, correctio
Summary: RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE WALLACE CAPEL, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . I. INTRODUCTION This 42 U.S.C. 1983 action is before the court on a complaint filed by Shannon Jackson ("Jackson"), an indigent inmate, currently incarcerated at the Draper Correctional Facility. In this case, Jackson complains that on April 12, 2015, while confined at the Staton Correctional Facility, inmate Thomas Young assaulted him. Jackson further alleges that defendants Fair, Daniels, and Burt, correction..
More
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is before the court on a complaint filed by Shannon Jackson ("Jackson"), an indigent inmate, currently incarcerated at the Draper Correctional Facility. In this case, Jackson complains that on April 12, 2015, while confined at the Staton Correctional Facility, inmate Thomas Young assaulted him. Jackson further alleges that defendants Fair, Daniels, and Burt, correctional officials assigned to Staton, failed to protect him from attack by inmate Young.
Upon review of the allegations contained in the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claim against inmate Young is due to be dismissed prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1
II. DISCUSSION
Jackson asserts that while he was sleeping inmate Young assaulted him without provocation. Complaint — Doc. No. 1 at 3-4. Under applicable federal law, the claim presented against inmate Young provides no basis for relief in this cause of action.
An essential element of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is that a person acting under color of state law committed the asserted constitutional deprivation. Am. Manuf. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999); Willis v. Univ. Health Serv., Inc., 993 F.2d 837, 840 (11th Cir. 1993).
To state a [viable] claim for relief in an action brought under § 1983, [a plaintiff] must establish that [he was] deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law. Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of §1983 excludes from its reach "`merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,'" Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L. Ed. 2d 534 (1982) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161 (1948)). . . . [Consequently,] state action requires . . . that "the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L. Ed. 2d 482 (1982); see Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1978)."
Am. Manuf., 526 U.S. at 49-50 (footnote omitted). It is clear that an inmate is not a state actor nor are his actions in any way attributable to the State. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that the instant claim on which Jackson seeks to proceed against inmate Young is frivolous and subject to summary dismissal pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. The plaintiff's claim against inmate Thomas Young be DISMISSED as frivolous prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. Thomas Young be DISMISSED as a defendant in this cause of action.
3. This case, with respect to the allegation of failure to protect set forth against defendants Fair, Daniels, and Burt be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings.
It is further
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before August 20, 2015. 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 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 decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).
