Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00369/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00369-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 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

EASTERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

OTIS GRAY *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-369-F

 WO

JENNY WILSON, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Otis Gray, is incarcerated in t he Opelika City Jail located in Opelika,

Alabama. He filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on April 21, 2005 complaining that on March

7, 2005 and Ap ril 13, 2005 he received mail that was torn and “re-taped.” Named as

defendants are Jenny Wilson, Latonya Gary and Sergeant Clark. Plaintiff asks the court

to investigate the matter about which he complains. 

Upon consideration of the pleadings filed in t his case, the court concludes that

dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d).1

 

Case 3:05-cv-00369-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 3
2

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint that on t wo occasions he received mail that had been torn and

taped fails to state a claim of constitutional magnitude. Assuming, arguendo, that the

damage to Plaintiff’s mail occurred at the jail facility and not through the postal service, the

law is well settled that the Constitution is not implicated by negligent acts of an official

causing unintended loss of life, liberty or property. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 333

(1986). In this case, Plaintiff's claim of negligence against Defendant s shows, at best, only

a lack of due care by prison officials which is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

p rotections of the Constitution “are just not triggered by lack of due care by p rison

officials.” Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 348 (1986); Daniels, 474 U.S. at 333. 

 Based on the foregoing, t he court concludes that the allegation about which

Plaintiff complains does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and provides no

basis for relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaint iff’s complaint is, therefore, subject to

summary dismissal pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that 

Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process in accordance

with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

It is further 

Case 3:05-cv-00369-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 3
3

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

or before May 9, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which t he p art y is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. T he p arties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written object ions to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar t he 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 26th day of April, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00369-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 3