Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00287/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00287-3/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 

JOHN PATRICK DUDLEY, #220 840, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-287-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

SGT. CALVIN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Staton Correctional Facility in Elmore, 

Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on April 30, 2015. In accordance with 

the prior opinions and orders of the court this action is pending on Plaintiff’s complaint 

against Sergeant Calvin, Lieutenant Tate, the Alabama Department of Corrections, and 

the Staton Correctional Facility. See Doc. Nos. 1, 7, 9, 10. Upon review , the court 

concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff complaint against the Alabama Department of 

Corrections and the Staton Correctional Facility prior to service of process is appropriate 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

 

I. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff names the Alabama Department of Corrections and the Staton 

Correctional Facility as defendants. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a 

                                                            

1 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 2:15-cv-00287-MHT-GMB Document 13 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

state or its agencies, regardless of relief sought. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986); 

Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). Because Plaintiff’s 

complaint against the Alabama Department of Corrections and the Staton Correctional 

Facility is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” these defendants are subject 

to dismissal 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 § 1983 claims against Defendants the Alabama Department of 

Corrections and the Staton Correctional be DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 

2. The Alabama Department of Corrections and the Staton Correctional Facility 

be DISMISSED with prejudice and terminated as parties prior to service of process under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 

 3. This case be REFERRED to the undersigned for further proceedings. 

 It is further 

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

Recommendation on or before August 12, 2015. 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. 

Case 2:15-cv-00287-MHT-GMB Document 13 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in 

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

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on 

appeal factual findings in the report 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 29th day of July, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00287-MHT-GMB Document 13 Filed 07/29/15 Page 3 of 3