Filed: Sep. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 02, 2016
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JOE B. BROWN , Magistrate Judge . For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the complaint against W.C. Jail Medical Staff be dismissed inasmuch as the jail staff is not an entity subject to suit and has not been served process within 90 days of the filing of the suit. BACKGROUND The Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 10, 2015 (Docket Entry 1). The complaint named as the first Defendant W.C. Jail Medical Staff. Also named was the Di
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JOE B. BROWN , Magistrate Judge . For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the complaint against W.C. Jail Medical Staff be dismissed inasmuch as the jail staff is not an entity subject to suit and has not been served process within 90 days of the filing of the suit. BACKGROUND The Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 10, 2015 (Docket Entry 1). The complaint named as the first Defendant W.C. Jail Medical Staff. Also named was the Dir..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOE B. BROWN, Magistrate Judge.
For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the complaint against W.C. Jail Medical Staff be dismissed inasmuch as the jail staff is not an entity subject to suit and has not been served process within 90 days of the filing of the suit.
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 10, 2015 (Docket Entry 1). The complaint named as the first Defendant W.C. Jail Medical Staff. Also named was the Director of the Medical Staff and employees Hammond, Resenbalm, Barnett, Kish, Boyd, Leonard, Corriveau and Sidberry. As a result of the initial review (Docket Entry 10) and the adoption of a report and recommendation (Docket Entry 67), the Director and Boyd have been terminated as Defendants. No service of process was issued for the W.C. Jail Medical Staff. The initial review (Docket Entry 10) directed at page 2 that the named Defendants in the case would be a number of individuals, many of whom were identified by their first names.1
LEGAL ANALYSIS
It does not appear that the W.C. Jail Medical Staff is a separate entity. The Plaintiff has identified various employees whom he has alleged committed violations of his constitutional rights. Therefore, there is no need to continue the Medical Staff as a defendant.
The Magistrate Judge entered an order (Docket Entry 54) on August 3, 2016, giving the Plaintiff 14 days to show cause why the Magistrate Judge should not make this recommendation concerning the medical staff. As of the date of this report and recommendation the Plaintiff has filed no response.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the W.C. Jail Medical Staff be dismissed from this case with prejudice and that any appeal from such an order not be certified as taken in good faith.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has 14 days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have 14 days from receipt of any objections filed in this Report in which to file any responses to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within 14 days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985), Reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
