1

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

screened 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

_________________________________

FREDERICK ROSS, #85881 *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:06-CV-771-ID

 (WO)

SHERIFF D.T. MARSHALL, et al., *

Defendants. * 

 __________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Plaintiff, Frederick Ross (“Ross”),

challenges the conditions of confinement to which he is subjected in the Montgomery County

Detention Facility. Ross seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages.

 Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that Ross' claims against the

Montgomery County Commission should be dismissed prior to service of process in

accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii).1

 

I. DISCUSSION

A. The County Commission

County commissioners cannot be held liable for actions undertaken during the daily

Case 2:06-cv-00771-ID-SRW Document 5 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

operation of a county jail. Turquitt v. Jefferson County, Alabama, 137 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th

Cir. 1998). Moreover, county commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity under § 1983

for claims arising from the appropriation of funds for the maintenance of a county jail.

Woods v. Garner, 132 F.3d 1417, 1420 (11th Cir. 1998) (“The budgetary decisions made by

defendants for funding the county--including the jail--are legislative acts protected by

legislative immunity.”). Thus, Ross' claims against the commissioners of Montgomery

County are subject to summary dismissal upon application of the directives of 28 U.S.C. §

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

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff's claims against the Montgomery County Commission be DISMISSED

with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). 

2. The Montgomery County Commission be DISMISSED as a Defendant to this

cause of action.

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

referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before September 24, 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

Case 2:06-cv-00771-ID-SRW Document 5 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

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

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 11th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00771-ID-SRW Document 5 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 3 of 3