Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00672/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00672-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DEMON VICTORELL SLATER, )

#177 985, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-672-MHT

 ) [WO]

CHAPLAIN ASKEW, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama, 

files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging violations of his First Amendment right to freedom 

of religion. Plaintiff names as defendants Warden Walter Myers, Deputy Warden Patrice Richie, 

Chaplain Askew, and the Alabama Department of Corrections (the “ADOC”). Upon review, the 

court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the ADOC is appropriate under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

I. DISCUSSION

The ADOC is not subject to suit or liability under § 1983 because the Eleventh Amendment 

bars suit directly against a state or its agencies, regardless of relief sought. Papasan v. Allain, 478 

U.S. 265 (1986); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). Plaintiff’s 

complaint against the ADOC is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” and therefore 

																																																												 1 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma papueris. Doc. 3. A prisoner who is allowed to 

proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have her 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 2:16-cv-00672-MHT-GMB Document 5 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 3
2

all claims against this defendant must be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Alabama Department of Corrections be 

DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i);

2. Defendant Alabama Department of Corrections be DISMISSED as a party to the 

complaint; and

3. This case regarding the remaining defendants be referred to the undersigned for 

further proceedings. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before September 8, 2016, Plaintiff may file an 

objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual 

findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff 

objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. 

This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon 

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust 

Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 

790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

Case 2:16-cv-00672-MHT-GMB Document 5 Filed 08/18/16 Page 2 of 3
3

DONE this 18th day of August, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00672-MHT-GMB Document 5 Filed 08/18/16 Page 3 of 3