United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
U.S.C. §1983 proceeding was filed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) by pro se
Plaintiff, Kenneth Peters, against Defendant, the Jefferson
Parish Correctional Center (“JPCC”) and,
ostensibly, an unknown number of unidentified deputies
employed at that facility.  (Rec. docs. 1, 5).
is an inmate of JPCC since his arrest on unspecified charges
on January 13, 2019. (Rec. doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff complains
that following his arrest, and while en route to the hospital
and JPCC, his black Kenneth Cole prescription eyeglasses were
lost despite all of his other personal property being
eventually accounted for at the jail. (Id. at p. 4).
Plaintiff asks that he be reimbursed for the price of his
eyeglasses or that his eyes be examined and that he receive a
set of replacement spectacles. (Id. at p. 5).
noted above, Plaintiff has initiated this suit in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. (Rec. doc.
5). A proceeding brought IFP may be dismissed as frivolous
under §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if the claim alleged therein has
no arguable basis in law or fact, Booker v. Koonce,
2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993), or if it fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also 28 U.S.C.
§1915A(b), 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c). Giving the instant
complaint a liberal reading, it is the recommendation of the
undersigned Magistrate Judge that this matter be dismissed as
frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
is well-settled that in order to set forth a cognizable claim
under §1983, an aggrieved party must allege that the
defendant, a “person” acting under color of state
law and in accordance with an established state procedure,
deprived him of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt
v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908 (1981),
overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664 (1986).
On that score, correctional facilities like JPCC are not
considered “persons” within the meaning of
§1983, as it is a building and not an entity or person
who is capable of being sued as such. Wetzel v. St.
Tammany Parish Jail, 610 F.Supp.2d 545, 548 (E.D. La.
2009); Jones v. St. Tammany Parish Jail, 4 F.Supp.2d
606, 613 (E.D. La. 1998). In the absence of any specifically
named jail personnel who allegedly violated Plaintiff's
constitutional rights, there are no appropriate juridical
persons before the Court against whom judgment may properly
be entered. Howard v. Gusman, No. 11-CV-2602, 2011
WL 6130763 at *2-3 (E.D. La. Nov. 17, 2011),
adopted, 2011 WL 6148592 (E.D. La. Dec. 8, 2011);
Allen v. Gusman, No. 05-CV-1633, 2006 WL 286007 at
*3 n. 8 (E.D. La. Feb. 2, 2006).
Plaintiff's claim in the instant case can be best
characterized as one for deprivation of property by a state
employee. Such a deprivation, whether done negligently,
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908
(1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664 (1986),
or intentionally, Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,
104 S.Ct. 3104 (1984), is not actionable under §1983
when an adequate state-law remedy exists. See also Murphy
v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1994);
Hines v. Booth, 841 F.2d 623, 624 (5th Cir. 1988).
Louisiana law provides such a remedy. See LSA-C.C.
Art. 2315. Nevertheless, considering Plaintiffs pro
se status, and liberally construing his complaint as
potentially raising a §1983 claim for needed medical
care, the undersigned will, contemporaneously with the
signing of this Report and Recommendation, issue a separate
order directing JPCC officials to have Plaintiff examined by
an appropriately-licensed eyecare provider and to receive
such treatment as may reasonably be recommended by the
foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiffs suit be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
partys failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in a
magistrate judges report and recommendation within 14 days
after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except
upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the district court, provided that the party has
been served with notice that such consequences will result
from a failure to object. Douglass v. United States Auto.
Assoc, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
 JPCC is the only Defendant
identified in the caption of Plaintiff's complaint. (Rec.
doc. 1, p. 1). However, on page four Plaintiff includes the
word “Deputies” in a space which asks for the job
title of the named Defendant, JPCC. (Id. at p.
Douglass referenced the
previously-applicable 10-day period for the filing of
objections. Effective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1) was amended to ...