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

screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

JAMES G. HUFFMAN *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-748-MEF

 (WO)

SOUTHERN HEALTH SERVICES, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Autauga County Metro Jail located

in Prattville, Alabama. He files this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action complaining that he has

been denied adequate medical care while housed at the jail. Among the named

defendants are the Autauga County Metro Jail and the President and Board of

Directors of Southern Health Partners. Upon review of the complaint, the court

concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against the Autauga County Metro Jail

and the President and Board of Directors of Southern Health Partners prior to

service of process is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1

Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 3 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 4
requires the court to dismiss a prisoner’s civil action prior to service of process 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).

2

I. DISCUSSION 

A. The Autauga County Metro Jail

The Autauga County Metro 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. 

B. The President and Board of Directors of Southern Health Partners

Plaintiff names the President and Board of Directors of Southern Health

Partners as defendants to this cause of action. Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain

a discernible cause of action against either of these named defendants with respect

to the conduct about which he complains. While the court is well aware that pro se

complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys,

Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any comprehensible cause of action against

Defendants President and Board of Directors of Southern Health Partners, and, they

are, therefore, due to be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Monell v. Dep't

of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (liability in a § 1983 action may not be

Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 3 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 2 of 4
3

premised upon a theory of respondeat superior); see also Hill v. Dekalb Reg'l Youth

Detention Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1192 (11 Cir.1994). th

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff's claims against the Autauga County Metro Jail and the President

and Board of Directors of Southern Health Partners be DISMISSED with prejudice

prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);

2. The Autauga County Metro Jail and the President and Board of Directors

of Southern Health Partners be DISMISSED as parties 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 11, 2006. 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

Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 3 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 3 of 4
4

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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.,

th

667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. th th

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 29 day of August 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 3 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 4 of 4