Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00119/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00119-0/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

EASTERN DIVISION

BRYAN KEEFE GOGGINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-119-TMH

) [WO]

LEE COUNTY DETENTION )

CENTER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Lee County Detention Center located in

Opelika, Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on February 25, 2013. He complains

that he remains incarcerated at the detention center beyond his release date and requests his

release as well as damages resulting from Defendants’ violation of his constitutional rights.

Plaintiff names as defendants the Lee County Detention Center, Sheriff Jay Jones, Captain

Cory Welch, Lieutenant Timothy Jones, and Sergeant Rodney Tabb.

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

against the Lee County Detention Center prior to service of process is appropriate under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

I. DISCUSSION 

A. The Lee County Detention Center

The Lee County Detention Center 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 (11 Cir. 1992). In th

Case 3:13-cv-00119-TMH-SRW Document 5 Filed 03/06/13 Page 1 of 3
light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against this defendant are

due to be dismissed. Id.

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff's claims against the Lee County Detention Center 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 Lee County Detention Center 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 March 20, 2013, Plaintiff may file an objection to the

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.

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

2

Case 3:13-cv-00119-TMH-SRW Document 5 Filed 03/06/13 Page 2 of 3
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 6 day of March, 2013. th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 3:13-cv-00119-TMH-SRW Document 5 Filed 03/06/13 Page 3 of 3