Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00772/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00772-0/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 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

HARRY JOSEPH, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-772-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

CRENSHAW COUNTY JAIL, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Crenshaw County Jail in Luverne, 

Alabama. He brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that Defendants subjected him 

to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the jail in September 2015. Plaintiff 

names as one of the defendants the Crenshaw County Jail. Upon review, the court 

concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the Crenshaw County Jail prior to 

service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1

 The Crenshaw County Jail is not a legal entity. It is, therefore, not subject to suit 

or liability under § 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). 

The court, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff’s claims against this defendant should be 

dismissed. Id. 

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

                                                            

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).

Case 2:15-cv-00772-MHT-WC Document 5 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

 1. Plaintiff’s claims against the Crenshaw County Jail 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 Crenshaw County Jail be DISMISSED as a party to this complaint; and 

 3. This case regarding the remaining defendants be referred back to the 

undersigned for additional proceedings. 

It is further 

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before November 12, 2015. A party must specifically identify 

the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is 

made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file 

written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance 

with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo

determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the 

Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions 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); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning 

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). The parties are advised that this Recommendation 

is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

Case 2:15-cv-00772-MHT-WC Document 5 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

Done this 29th day of October, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00772-MHT-WC Document 5 Filed 10/29/15 Page 3 of 3