IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

HAROLD MOSS, #170262, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-784-MEF

) [WO]

)

MONTGOMERY PRE-RELEASE CENTER, et a)l.,

)

 Defendants )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Harold Moss [“Moss”], a state inmate,

asserts that correctional officers subjected him to the use of excessive force at the

Montgomery Pre-Release Center. The plaintiff names the aforementioned correctional

facility as a defendant in this cause of action.

Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of Moss’ claims

against the Montgomery Pre-Release Center prior to service of process is appropriate under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

DISCUSSION 

A state prison facility is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, see Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11 Cir. 1992), nor is a facility a person th

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1983. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

Moss’ claims against the Montgomery Pre-Release Center are due to be summarily

dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. The claims presented by Moss against the Montgomery Pre-Release 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. This correctional facility be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action. 

3. This case, with respect to defendants Casey and Smith, be referred back to the

undersigned for appropriate proceedings. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before September 18, 2006 the parties may file objections to

this Recommendation. Any objections filed must clearly 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

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

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 decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed 

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 6 day of September, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00784-MEF-WC Document 3 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 3 of 3