A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened
in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure 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).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EDDIE EDWARD MASTIN, #134688,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-965-D
BULLOCK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Eddie Edward Mastin [“Mastin”], a state
inmate, challenges the constitutionality of his confinement at the Bullock County
Correctional Facility. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that dismissal of
this case prior to service of process is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
A. The Named Defendant
Mastin names the Bullock County Correctional Facility as the sole defendant in this
case. A correctional 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 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the
Case 2:05-cv-00965-ID-CSC Document 4 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 1 of 5
Mastin v. Bullock County Correctional Facility (INMATE1)
Although Neitzke interpreted the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the predecessor to § 1915(e)(2), the
analysis contained therein remains applicable to the directives of the present statute.
foregoing, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s claims against the Bullock County
Correctional Facility are due to be dismissed in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Neitzke