Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00452/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00452-0/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

BILLY WAYNE STANFIELD, )

#176 704, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-452-WHA 

) [WO]

DR. DARBOUZE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Eastelring Correctional Facilitylocated in Clio,

Alabama, files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining that his Eighth Amendment rights are

being violated by a lack of adequate medical care and treatment. Named as defendants are

the Easterling Correctional Facility, Dr. Darbouze, and Correctional Medical Services, Inc. 

Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against

the Easterling Correctional Facility prior to service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

1

I. DISCUSSION 

The Easterling Correctional Facility is not subject to suit or liability under § 1983.

 A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint 1

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 2:13-cv-00452-CSC Document 7 Filed 07/12/13 Page 1 of 3
The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or its agencies regardless of the

nature of the relief sought. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89

(1984). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against the

Easterling Correctional Facility are due to be dismissed. Id. 

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff's claims against the Easterling Correctional Facility 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 Easterling Correctional Facility be DISMISSED as a party to this complaint;

and

3. This case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the

undersigned for additional proceedings. 

 It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 26, 2013 Plaintiff may file an objection to the said

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised that this

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

2

Case 2:13-cv-00452-CSC Document 7 Filed 07/12/13 Page 2 of 3
Failure to file a written objection 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 12 day of July, 2013. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-00452-CSC Document 7 Filed 07/12/13 Page 3 of 3