United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Charles S. Coody United States Magistrate Judge
an inmate incarcerated at the Alabama Therapeutic Education
Facility in Columbiana, Alabama, brings this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action challenging the conditions of confinement to
which he was subjected during his incarceration at the
Covington County Jail. Plaintiff names as defendants
Covington County, Alan Syler, and Sheriff Dennis Meeks. Upon
review, the court concludes that Defendant Covington County
is due to be summarily dismissed prior to service of process
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
names Covington County as a defendant. Section 1983 imposes
liability on a municipality such as Covington County only if
it deprives a plaintiff of rights protected by the
Constitution or federal law under an official municipal
policy. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S.
658, 690-91 (1978). Additionally, governmental entities such
as Covington County cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior.
Id. at 694; Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,
385 (1989) (“[A] municipality can be found liable under
§ 1983 only where the municipality itself causes the
constitutional violation at issue. Respondeat
superior or vicarious liability will not attach under
19§83.”). Nor may a county be held liable under
§ 1983 simply because it employs a tortfeasor. See
Monell, 436 U.S. at 691.
case, other than naming Covington County as defendant,
Plaintiff makes no allegations against this
entity. Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316,
1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Pamel Corp. v. P.R. Highway
Auth., 621 F.2d 33, 36 (1st Cir. 1980) (“While we
do not require technical niceties in pleading, we must demand
that the complaint state with some minimal particularity how
overt acts of the defendant caused a legal wrong.”));
see also Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th
Cir. 1974) (per curiam). Consequently, Plaintiff's claims
against Covington County are due to be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendant
Covington County be DISMISSED without prejudice under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
2. Defendant Covington County be TERMINATED as a party to the
3. This case with respect to the remaining defendants be
referred to the undersigned for further proceedings.
ORDERED that on or before January 23, 2019,
Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation.
Plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and
legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is
made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not
to file a written objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo
determination by the District Court of legal and factual
issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of
a party to challenge on appeal the District Court's order
based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted
or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain
error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see
Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996
F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson,
885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).