Brown v. Richland Detention Center

Full title: ALEX BROWN, III v. RICHLAND DETENTION CENTER, ET AL

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division

Date published: May 4, 2006

Facts

Before the court is the civil rights complaint ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983) filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Alex Brown, III, on February 14, 2006. Brown is an inmate in the custody of Louisiana’s Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC). He is incarcerated at Richland Detention Center (RDC), Rayville, Louisiana, and he complains that he has received inadequate medical care at that facility; In an amended complaint filed on April 20, 2006, he complained of threats and other conditions of confinement. He named the facility, Warden Cupp, and Nurse Camilla Grant as defendants and prayed for an investigation of the facility, that Nurse Grant be relieved of her duties, and for an award of compensatory damages for pain and suffering in the amount of $ 1 billion. In his amended complaint, he named Major Trey Stokes as a defendant and prayed for a transfer to another institution.

This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the court.

Issue

Decision

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the plaintiff’s civil rights complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have ten (10) business days from the service of this report and recommendation to file specific, written objections with the clerk of court. A party may respond to another party’s objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof.  Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual finding and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within ten (10) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglas v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Also, Read

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

seventeen + eight =