Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Williams v. Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility Et Al (Inmate 2) - Document No. 3
Williams v. Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility Et Al (Inmate 2) - Document No. 3
3
Case 2:05-cv-00368-ID-DRB Document 3 Filed 04/25/2005 Page 1 of 3
Plaintiff, *
Springs Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on April 21, 2005. He asserts that
while confined at the Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility in 1989 he was attacked and
sustained serious injuries. Plaintiff received a third operation in March 2005 stemming from
the injuries he received in the 1989 incident. As a result, Plaintiff requests that Taylor
Hardin reimburse the State of Alabama/Alabama Department of Corrections for the three
operations and award him $3 million. Named as defendants are the Alabama Department of
Upon review of Plaintiff’s allegations, the court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff's
1
A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint
screened in accordance w ith the provisions of 28 U .S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-00368-ID-DRB Document 3 Filed 04/25/2005 Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION
Neither Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility nor the Alabama Department of
Corrections is subject to suit or liability under § 1983. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit
directly against a state or its agencies, regardless 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 complaint against the named defendants is due to be dismissed. Id;
. CONCLUSION
complaint be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
It is further
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said
Recommendation on or before May 9, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify
the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. 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
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 imm une from such relief. 28 U . S. C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
2
Case 2:05-cv-00368-ID-DRB Document 3 Filed 04/25/2005 Page 3 of 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 th Cir. 1982). See Stein
v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th 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