Nye v. Riley et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 10/4/2018. (AFS)
FILED
2018 Oct-04 AM 09:20
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
JAMES DONALD NYE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARKITA SHAW, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:16-cv-00806-AKK-HNJ
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report recommending the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies be
granted and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied. Doc. 16. The
plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation. Doc. 17.
The plaintiff contends the United States Supreme Court and other Circuits
do not require prisoners to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing
a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, or require exhaustion only when administrative
procedures satisfy certain minimum standards. Doc. 17 at 1-7. However, current
Supreme Court precedent overrules and abrogates every case (id. at 8) the plaintiff
relies upon to support such an argument. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) expressly
states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under
section 1983 by a prisoner . . . until such administrative remedies as are available
are exhausted.” For the past two decades, the Supreme Court repeatedly has
“reject[ed] every attempt to deviate from” § 1997e(a)’s “textual mandate.” Ross v.
Blake, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1857 (2016) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
199, 203-204, 216-217 (2007); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84-85 (2006);
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520, 524 (2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,
741 n.6 (2001)).
The plaintiff also objects to the “report and recommendation in the matter of
the Work Release Center in respect to their procedure to address concerns by
offenders.” Doc. 17 at 8. He alleges “[t]he only remedy policy the [work release]
center has is a request form. There is no other form of remedy and the center has
no other avenue for complaints[.]” Id.1 He points to defendant Shaw’s testimony
as quoted in the report, “‘If the offender is not satisfied with the response [to his
request form] by the Staff, he can appeal to Captain Britt and ultimately to me for
the final decision.’” Doc. 16 at 15 (quoting Doc. 13-1 at 6). The plaintiff argues
that he “completed,” i.e. exhausted the “remedy process,” because Shaw makes
“the final decision” and he “talk[ed]” to her about the “problem of not filling” his
medication but “she would not fill or turn in the prescription to his employer.”
1
Although it does not appear so, if the plaintiff objects to state that the administrative
process consists solely of a request form, he makes this allegation for the first time. Thus, the
magistrate judge did not err in reporting the undisputed nature of defendant Shaw’s testimony
regarding the administrative steps. Further, the plaintiff received notice that his “[o]bjections
should not contain new allegations, present additional evidence, or repeat legal arguments.”
Doc. 16 at 17.
2
Doc. 17 at 8-9. The plaintiff did not exhaust the process available to him because
he undisputedly never filed any written requests or appeals regarding the
medications for his work-related injury. Doc. 13-1 at 6; Doc. 15-2 at 12-17. 2 A
prisoner must completely exhaust the administrative remedies available to him
regardless of whether they meet certain “minimum acceptable standards” of
fairness and effectiveness. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740 n.5, 741 (2001).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the
magistrate judge’s report is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is
ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED and the plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment is DENIED.
DONE the 4th day of October, 2018.
_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
He contends “this is also the case” for his claims regarding the opening of his legal
mail. Doc. 17 at 9. However, the undisputed evidence shows the plaintiff never filed any
written requests or appeals complaining about the opening of his mail. Doc. 15-2 at 12-17.
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?