Curtis v. Gibson et al

Filing 92

ORDER approving and adopting 78 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; denying 49 Mr. Curtis's motion for summary judgment; granting 58 defendants' motion for summary judgment; dismissing 1 Mr. Curtis's complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies; and denying all other pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 07/07/2015. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
DEMETRIUS CURTIS,
ADC #120225
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 5:14-cv-00090-KGB-JJV

GIBSON, Deputy Warden, Delta
Regional Unit; et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 78), as well as the objections filed by
plaintiff Demetrius Curtis (Dkt. Nos. 82, 83, 84, 85). After carefully considering the objections
and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and
Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this
Court’s findings in all respects.
The Court writes separately to address Mr. Curtis’s objections. Mr. Curtis argues that his
administrative remedies were exhausted at the time he filed this action because his appeal was
not acknowledged or rejected in writing within five working days, which is required by
Administrative Directive (“AD”) 14-16(IV)(G)(5) (Dkt. No. 59-1, at 12). Mr. Curtis apparently
filed this action after the five-day deadline had passed. In support of this argument, Mr. Curtis
cites Whitington v. Ortiz, which states that “when prison officials fail to timely respond to a
grievance, the prisoner has exhausted ‘available’ administrative remedies under the PLRA.” 472
F.3d 804, 807-08 (10th Cir. 2007). However, AD 14-16(IV)(G)(6) provides that the “Chief
Deputy/Deputy/Assistant Director will respond in writing to the inmate concerning the decision
within thirty (30) working days unless . . . the appeal is rejected and the inmate is notified of the

reason for rejection” and that this “written decision or rejection of an appeal at this level is the
end of the grievance process” (Dkt. No. 59-1, at 12). Mr. Curtis does not claim that the
responses to his grievances were untimely under AD 14-16(IV)(G)(6), and, indeed, based on the
record the responses appear to have been timely. Because Mr. Curtis filed this action before
responses were required under AD 14-16(IV)(G)(6), Mr. Curtis did not properly exhaust his
administrative remedies as required.
It is therefore ordered that:
1.

Mr. Curtis’s motion for summary judgment is denied (Doc. No. 49);

2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted (Doc. No. 58);

3.

Mr. Curtis’s complaint against defendants is dismissed without prejudice for

failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
4.

Any other pending motions are denied as moot.

SO ORDERED this the 7th day of July, 2015.

________________________________
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2