Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-00102/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-00102-1/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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 ____________________________

KELVIN POWELL *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 1:11-CV-102-ID

 (WO)

KEITH REED, et al., *

Defendants. *

 ____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Houston County Jail located in Dothan,

Alabama. He filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on February 11, 2011. Among the named

defendants is the Houston County Jail. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes

that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail prior to service of process

is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

DISCUSSION 

The Houston County Jail is not a legal entity and, therefore, is not subject to suit or

liability under § 1983. See 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 should be

dismissed. Id. 

CONCLUSION

Case 1:11-cv-00102-ID-WC Document 5 Filed 02/23/11 Page 1 of 3
2

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

1. Plaintiff's claims against the Houston County Jail 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 Houston County Jail 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 the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before March 8, 2011. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects.

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 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

Case 1:11-cv-00102-ID-WC Document 5 Filed 02/23/11 Page 2 of 3
3

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 23rd day of February 2011.

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00102-ID-WC Document 5 Filed 02/23/11 Page 3 of 3