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

1

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, regardless of the payment of a filing fee, 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).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JEREMIAH W. GREEN, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-667-WKW

) [WO]

)

ELMORE COUNTY JAIL, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which the plaintiff, Jeremiah W. Green

[“Green”], a federal inmate, challenges actions taken against him during his confinement

in the Elmore County Jail. 

 Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that summary dismissal of the

plaintiff’s claims against the Elmore County Jail is appropriate pursuant to the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

1

 DISCUSSION

Green names the Elmore County Jail as a defendant in this cause of action. A

county jail is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under section 1983. Cf. Dean v.

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court

concludes that the plaintiff's claims against the Elmore County Jail are due to be dismissed.

Id. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. The plaintiff’s claims against the Elmore County Jail and his challenge to the lack

of a timely response to his inmate grievance be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

2. The Elmore County Jail be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action.

3. This case, with respect to the plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants,

be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before 11 August 2006 the parties may file objections to this

Recommendation. 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

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

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

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 28 day of July, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 3 of 3