IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

MARVIN KURT NATION, #141 669 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-693-ID

(WO)

WILLIE AMBERS, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Fountain Correctional Facility located in

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

rights were violated when he was injured while on a prison work detail and when he received

inadequate medical care for the injuries he sustained. Plaintiff names the Kilby Correctional

Facility and Elmore Correctional Facility as defendants to this cause of action. Upon review

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

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

1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

DISCUSSION 

The Kilby and Elmore Correctional Facilities are not subject to suit or liability under

§ 1983. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit directly against a state or its agencies, regardless

Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

of the nature of 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 Kilby

and Elmore Correctional Facilities are due to be dismissed. Id. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff's claims against the Kilby Correctional Facility and the Elmore

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 Kilby Correctional Facility and the Elmore Correctional Facility be

DISMISSED as defendants 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 September 19, 2006. 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

Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

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 7th day of September 2006. 

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 3 of 3