United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
May 16, 2014
TERRY REED, #XXXXX-XXX, Plaintiff,
RUSSELL THOMAS, SHERIFF, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, Magistrate Judge.
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Yazoo City Federal Correctional Institution in Yazoo City, Mississippi, challenges the conditions of confinement to which he was subjected while incarcerated at the Pike County Jail in Troy, Alabama. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for the alleged violations of his constitutional rights.
Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes Plaintiff's claims against the Pike County Board of Commissioners 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).
County commissioners cannot be held liable for actions undertaken during the daily 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, Plaintiff's claims against the Commissioners of Pike County are subject to summary dismissal upon application of the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) and (iii).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. Plaintiff's claims against the Pike County Board of Commissioners 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 Pike County Board of Commissioners be DISMISSED as Defendants 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 May 30, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar a 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.