Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    White v. Officer Bender Et Al (INMATE1) - Document No. 5

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that (1) the plf's claims against the Montgomery City Jail be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (2) the Montgomery City Jail be dismissed as a defendant in thi s cause of action; (3) this case, with respect to the plf's claims against def Bender, Johnson, Green, Scott and McKenzie, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 10/13/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/30/05. (djy, ) 2:2005cv00895 Alabama Middle District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    White v. Officer Bender Et Al (INMATE1) - Document No. 5

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    37 views3 pages
    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that (1) the plf's claims against the Montgomery City Jail be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (2) the Montgomery City Jail be dismissed as a defendant in thi s cause of action; (3) this case, with respect to the plf's claims against def Bender, Johnson, Green, Scott and McKenzie, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 10/13/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/30/05. (djy, ) 2:2005cv00895 Alabama Middle District Court

    Original Title

    White v. Officer Bender et al (INMATE1) - Document No. 5

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that (1) the plf's claims against the Montgomery City Jail be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (2) the Montgomery City Jail be dismissed as a defendant in thi s cause of action; (3) this case, with respect to the plf's claims against def Bender, Johnson, Green, Scott and McKenzie, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 10/13/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/30/05. (djy, ) 2:2005cv00895 Alabama Middle District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    37 views3 pages

    White v. Officer Bender Et Al (INMATE1) - Document No. 5

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that (1) the plf's claims against the Montgomery City Jail be dismissed prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (2) the Montgomery City Jail be dismissed as a defendant in thi s cause of action; (3) this case, with respect to the plf's claims against def Bender, Johnson, Green, Scott and McKenzie, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 10/13/2005. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/30/05. (djy, ) 2:2005cv00895 Alabama Middle District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    White v. Officer Bender et al (INMATE1) Doc.

    5
    Case 2:05-cv-00895-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 1 of 3

    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


    FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
    NORTHERN DIVISION

    JAMES EDWARD WHITE, )


    )
    Plaintiff, )
    )
    v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-895-T
    ) [WO]
    )
    MONTGOMERY CITY JAIL, et al., )
    )
    Defendants. )

    RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

    This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which James Edward White challenges actions

    taken against him at the Montgomery City Jail. Upon review of the complaint, the court

    concludes that the Montgomery City Jail should be dismissed from this cause of action prior

    to service of process in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1

    DISCUSSION

    The plaintiff names the Montgomery City Jail as a defendant in this cause of action.

    A city jail 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 concludes

    that the plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery City Jail are due to be dismissed. Id.

    1
    A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened
    in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court
    to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action prior to service of process, regardless of the payment of a filing fee, if it
    determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief 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 2:05-cv-00895-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 2 of 3

    CONCLUSION

    Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

    1. The plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery City Jail be dismissed prior to

    service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

    2. The Montgomery City Jail be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action.

    3. This case, with respect to the plaintiff's claims against defendants Bender, Johnson,

    Green, Scott and McKenzie, be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings.

    It is further

    ORDERED that on or before October 13, 2005 the parties may file objections to the

    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

    2
    Case 2:05-cv-00895-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 3 of 3

    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.

    Done this 30th day of September, 2005.

    /s/Charles S. Coody
    CHARLES S. COODY
    CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

    You might also like