Tommy Mosley v. Correctional Care Solutions, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Pasco M. Bowman and Diana E. Murphy (UNPUBLISHED); Denying as moot [4426255-2] motion to file a substitute reply brief filed by Appellant Mr. Tommy Ray Mosley. [4478415] [16-1882]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1882
___________________________
Tommy Ray Mosley
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Correctional Care Solutions; Arkansas Department of Correction; Wendy Kelley;
Danny Burl
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff
____________
Submitted: October 31, 2016
Filed: December 12, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate Tommy Mosley appeals from
the judgment of the District Court1 dismissing with prejudice his claims against the
1

The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 16-1882

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 4478415

Arkansas Department of Correction and dismissing his remaining claims without
prejudice. He challenges the denial of class certification, discovery rulings, and the
dismissal of his claims to the extent they were dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.2
We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion either in
denying class certification or in its discovery rulings. See Parke v. First Reliance
Standard Life Ins. Co., 368 F.3d 999, 1004 (8th Cir. 2004) (reviewing denial of class
certification for an abuse of discretion); Paxton v. Union Nat’l Bank, 688 F.2d 552,
559 (8th Cir. 1982) (discussing requirements for class certification), cert. denied, 460
U.S. 1083 (1983); Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir. 2004) (reviewing
rulings on discovery matters for a gross abuse of discretion). We further conclude
that the District Court did not err in dismissing some of Mosley’s claims for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies, as it is undisputed that Mosley filed a pertinent
grievance that was ultimately exhausted after he initiated this action. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under
section 1983 . . . by a prisoner . . . until such administrative remedies as are available
are exhausted.”); King v. Iowa Dep’t. of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir.)
(reviewing de novo district court’s interpretation of § 1997e(a)), cert. denied, 562
U.S. 966 (2010); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 626-28 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Under the
plain language of section 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies
before filing suit in federal court.”).
We affirm the District Court, and we deny as moot Mosley’s pending motion
to file a substitute reply brief.

2

Mosley presented no meaningful argument as to any other ruling made by the
District Court. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2007)
(noting that points not meaningfully argued on appeal are waived).
-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1882

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/12/2016 Entry ID: 4478415