Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00834/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00834-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 1

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, regardless of the payment of a filing fee, 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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

SHARODERICK ANTON SMITH, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06-CV-834-WKW

) [WO]

)

OFFICER AARON, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which the plaintiff, Sharoderick Anton Smith

[“Smith”], challenges actions taken against him during his confinement in the Lee County

Detention Center. 

Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that summary dismissal of

Smith’s claims against the Lee County Detention Center is appropriate pursuant to the

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

1

 DISCUSSION

Smith names the Lee County Detention Center as a defendant in this cause of action.

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

Cf. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11 Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the th

Case 3:06-cv-00834-WKW-WC Document 8 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 3
2

court concludes that the plaintiff's claims against the Lee County Detention Center are due

to be dismissed. Id. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. The plaintiff’s claims against the Lee County Detention Center be dismissed with

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

2. The Lee County Detention Center 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 November 14, 2006 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

Case 3:06-cv-00834-WKW-WC Document 8 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 3
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 1 day of November, 2006. st

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00834-WKW-WC Document 8 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 3