Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00168/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00168-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint 1

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).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

ROBERT LEE BROTHERS, JR. #235 033 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-168-MHT

 (WO)

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC., et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Robert Brothers, Jr., is incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility. He

files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action over a dispute regarding the provision of medical care at

the prison. Among the named defendants is the Alabama Department of Corrections

[“ADOC”]. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint

against the ADOC is subject to dismissal in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). 

1

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

Case 2:06-cv-00168-MHT-CSC Document 12 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 3
 Although Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to § 1915(e)(2), 2

the analysis contained therein remains applicable to the directives contained in the present statute.

2

of the nature of relief sought. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986); Pennhurst State

School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against the

ADOC are “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” and are, therefore, 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). 

2

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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

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

of action; and

3. This case with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendant(s) be

referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings. 

It is further 

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on

or before April 17 , 2006. 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.

Case 2:06-cv-00168-MHT-CSC Document 12 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 3
3

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

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 4 day of April, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00168-MHT-CSC Document 12 Filed 04/04/06 Page 3 of 3