BROWN et al v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 6/26/12. (KGE, )
2012 Jun-26 AM 11:03
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TIMOTHY DEMITRI BROWN,
WARDEN CONSTANCE REESE,
Case No. 1:09-cv-02000-WMA-HGD
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on May 10, 2012,
recommending that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and this
cause be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed objections on May 21, 2012.
Plaintiff alleges that the recommendation of the magistrate judge does not
comport with the law of this circuit and is based solely on the magistrate judge’s
prejudice towards the him. (Doc. 83).
Defendants responded to the order for special report by informing the court that
plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. It was the responsibility
of plaintiff to then respond with facts to show that he had exhausted the
Page 1 of 3
administrative remedies available to him for each of the claims before the court, prior
to filing this lawsuit.
As to all claims advanced by plaintiff in his complaint, he had available to him
the multi-step procedure set forth in the Bureau of Prison’s Administrative Remedy
Program. See 28 C.F.R. § 542. The BOP regulations provide “a process through
which inmates may seek formal review of an issue which relates to any aspect of their
confinement if less formal procedures have not resolved the matter.” 28 C.F.R.
§ 542.10. In accordance with the BOP’s ARP, an inmate shall first attempt informal
resolution of his complaint by presenting the issue informally to staff, and staff must
attempt to resolve the issue. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a). BOP regulations further
provide that if the complaint cannot be resolved informally, the inmate may submit
a formal written Administrative Remedy Request to the warden, on a designated
form, within 20 days of the event that triggered the inmate’s complaint. See 28
C.F.R. § 542.15(a). Further, the regulations provide that in the event the inmate’s
formal request is denied, the inmate may submit an appeal to the appropriate Regional
Director of the BOP. See 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a). Finally, the regulations provide that
a negative decision from the Regional Director may in turn be appealed to the General
Counsel’s Office within 30 days of the date of the Regional Director’s decision.
Page 2 of 3
It is undisputed that plaintiff has filed numerous grievances. However, the
documents provided by plaintiff in response to defendants’ special report are not
related to the claims asserted in the current lawsuit and were filed after the date that
this suit was filed. Simply put, plaintiff has not shown that he complied with the
exhaustion mandate in regard to the administrative remedy procedure. Under current
law, he must do so before proceeding herein.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation and the objections filed by plaintiff, the
Court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby
ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. The Court EXPRESSLY
FINDS that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that defendants are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is due to be GRANTED and this action is due to be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. A Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE this the 26th day of June, 2012.
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?