Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00405/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00405-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court may dismiss a case at any time,

regardless of the payment of any filing fee, if the court determines that the action is frivolous, fails to state

a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

this relief.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

STEPHEN PAUL McCARY, *

#246 384

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:09-CV-405-WHA

 (WO)

LT. STEELE, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Plaintiff, an inmate at the Holman

Correctional Facility, contends that he was subjected to excessive force and inadequate

medical care. Plaintiff names as one of the defendants the Staton Health Care Unit.. Upon

review of the complaint filed in this case, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's

claims against the Staton Health Care Unit prior to service of process is appropriate under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

I. DISCUSSION

The Staton Health Care Unit is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under

section 1983. Cf. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the

foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against this defendant are subject to

Case 2:09-cv-00405-WHA-CSC Document 5 Filed 05/22/09 Page 1 of 3
2

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 claims against the Staton Health Care Unit be DISMISSED with

prejudice prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i); and

2. This case, with respect to the claims presented against the remaining defendants,

be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further 

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on

or before June 4, 2009 . 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

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

Case 2:09-cv-00405-WHA-CSC Document 5 Filed 05/22/09 Page 2 of 3
3

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 22ND day of May, 2009.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00405-WHA-CSC Document 5 Filed 05/22/09 Page 3 of 3