Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00687/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00687-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 KENNETH W. DAVIDSON, #274 925, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:12-CV-687-TMH

) [WO]

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Elba Community Based Facility located in

Elba, Alabama, files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining that Defendants have subjected him

to racial discrimination. Plaintiff names the Alabama Department of Corrections as a

defendant. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's

claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections prior to service of process is

appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

I. DISCUSSION 

The Alabama Department of Corrections is not subject to suit or liability under §

1983. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or its agencies, regardless

of the nature of relief sought. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89

(1984). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against the

Alabama Department of Corrections are due to be dismissed. Id. 

Case 1:12-cv-00687-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 3
II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections be DISMISSED

with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

2. The Alabama Department of Corrections be DISMISSED as a party to this

complaint; and 

3. This case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the

undersigned for additional proceedings. 

 It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation on or before 

September 10, 2012. Any objections 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. 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

2

Case 1:12-cv-00687-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/27/12 Page 2 of 3
v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 27 day of August, 2012. th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:12-cv-00687-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 08/27/12 Page 3 of 3