Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-508-MHT [WO]
09-01-2015
CALVIN JOHNSON, #147679, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN DAVENPORT, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama, files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining that Defendants failed to protect him from an inmate assault. Among the named defendants is the Easterling Correctional Facility. Upon review, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Easterling Correctional Facility is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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 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). --------
I. DISCUSSION
The Easterling Correctional Facility is not subject to suit or liability under § 1983. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or its agencies, regardless of relief sought. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). Because Plaintiff's complaint against the Easterling Correctional Facility is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," this defendant is subject to dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant Easterling Correctional Facility be DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);
2. Defendant Easterling Correctional Facility be DISMISSED as a party to the complaint; and
3. This case regarding the remaining defendants be referred to the undersigned for further proceedings.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before September 15, 2015, Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar a 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.
DONE, this 1st day of September, 2015.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker
SUSAN RUSS WALKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE