May v. Ridgell

Filing 22

ORDER approving and adopting 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; granting defendant's 12 motion for summary judgment; and dismissing without prejudice 2 complaint. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 04/28/2016. (rhm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JAMES CLAYTON MAY, ADC # 137749 v. PLAINTIFF 5:15-cv-00348-KGB-JVV KEVIN DEMON RIDGELL, Sergeant, Delta Regional Unit DEFENDANT ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations (“Recommendations”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and plaintiff James Clayton May’s objections (Dkt. Nos. 15, 20). After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the 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. May’s objections. Judge Volpe determined that Mr. May did not exhaust his administrative remedies before pursuing litigation in this case (Dkt. No. 15, at 3-4). Consequently, Judge Volpe recommends that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. Rather than respond to that determination, Mr. May’s objections contend that defendant Kevin Ridgell used excessive force when he pepper sprayed Mr. May for refusing to work outside in the heat. This Court, however, cannot consider the substance of Mr. May’s claims since he did not exhaust his administrative remedies until after he filed this action. Exhaustion of administrative remedies, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), is required for all prisoner suits seeking redress for prison circumstances or occurrences, including claims of excessive force. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). Mr. May has not alleged that he has satisfied the PLRA requirements or is otherwise exempt from those provisions . The Court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgement is granted and dismisses without prejudice the complaint due to Mr. May’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Dkt. Nos. 12, 2). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 28th day of April, 2016. ____________________________________ Kristine G. Baker United States District Court Judge 2

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?