Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00443/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00443-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

NATHAN BROWN, #282959, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:12-CV-443-WHA

)

QUALITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, )

INC. et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Nathan Brown [“Brown”], an indigent state inmate,

complains that he contracted tuberculosis during his previous confinement at the

Montgomery County Detention Facility. Brown names this facility as a defendant in this

cause of action.

 Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s claims against

the Montgomery County Detention Facility are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

1

II. DISCUSSION

A county jail is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under section 1983. See

The court granted Garrett leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Court Doc. No.3. A prisoner who is allowed

1

to proceed in forma pauperis will have his complaint screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which requires this 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).

Case 2:12-cv-00443-WHA-SRW Document 10 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 3
Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11 Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the

th

plaintiff’s claims against the Montgomery County Detention Facility are due to be dismissed

as frivolous in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Id.

III. CONCLUSION

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

1. The plaintiff’s claims against the Montgomery County Detention Facility be

dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

2. The Montgomery County Detention Facility be dismissed as a defendant in this

cause of action.

3. This case with respect to the plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants

be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 20, 2012, the parties may file objections to this

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

2

Case 2:12-cv-00443-WHA-SRW Document 10 Filed 06/06/12 Page 2 of 3
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 6th day of June, 2012.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:12-cv-00443-WHA-SRW Document 10 Filed 06/06/12 Page 3 of 3