United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
February 3, 2014
ELIJAH WASHINGTON, Plaintiff,
DAUPHIN COUNTY PRISON, et al., Defendants.
EDWIN M. KOSIK, District Judge.
AND NOW, THIS 3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014, IT APPEARING TO THE COURT THAT:
 Plaintiff, Elijah Washington, a prisoner currently confined at the State Correctional Institution in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania, filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pro se, on November 19, 2013 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff's Complaint is based on incidents which occurred while housed at the Dauphin County Prison;
 The action was assigned to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson for Report and Recommendation;
 On December 11, 2013, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated November 20, 2013 (Doc. 5), granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice, and allowing the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within twenty days (Doc. 8);
 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 23, 2013 (Doc. 9) naming the Dauphin County Prison, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and Sergeant John Doe #3 as Defendants;
 On December 30, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10), wherein he recommended that the Dauphin County Prison be dismissed as a defendant in this action;
 Specifically, after screening the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state a claim against the institutional defendant, the Dauphin County Prison;
(6) Plaintiff has failed to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation;
AND, IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:
(7) If no objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff is not statutorily entitled to a de novo review of his claims. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985). Nonetheless, the usual practice of the district court is to give "reasoned consideration" to a magistrate judge's report prior to adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson , 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987);
(8) We have considered the Magistrate Judge's Report and we concur with his recommendation. We agree that a county prison is not a proper defendant since it is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983. See Regan v. Upper Darby Tp., No. 06-1686 , 2009 WL 650384, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2009) (citations omitted). Thus, we also agree that upon screening the Complaint, Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the Dauphin County Prison.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson dated December 30, 2013 (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED;
(2) The Dauphin County Prison is DISMISSED from this action; and
(3) The above captioned case is REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this Order.