Bryant v. Corizon, Inc. et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 33 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS with the exception of the difference in reasoning as set forth. Further granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on September 30, 2014. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

DALE E. BRYANT

PLAINTIFF

v.

Case no. 13-6022

CORIZON, INC.; MR. PRATT;
and DR. GREGORY McKINNEY

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Now on this 30th day of September, 2014, there comes on for
consideration the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) filed by
the

Honorable

Judge

for

James

the

R.

Western

Marschewski,
District

of

United

States

Arkansas,

in

Magistrate

regard

to

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) filed by Defendants.

a

Also

before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 37).
The Court has reviewed this case de novo.
recommends

that

Defendants’

Motion

for

Summary

granted and Plaintiff’s Complaint dismissed.
for

summary

judgment

on

the

basis

The Magistrate

that

Judgment

be

Defendants moved
Plaintiff

has

not

exhausted his administrative remedies, as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

Plaintiff’s

claims

care

are

based

incarcerated.

on

denial

of

adequate

medical

while

He attached four grievances to his Complaint: OR-

12-01031 (No. 1031), OR-12-01213 (No. 1213), OR-12-01389 (No.
Page 1 of 3

1389), and OR-13-00037 (No. 0037).

The Magistrate found that

Nos. 1031 and 0037 have not been exhausted because Plaintiff did
not file an appeal on the administrative level, and Plaintiff
objects.
without

The Court finds Plaintiff’s objections to this finding
merit,

reasoning

with

and

adopts

respect

to

the
the

Magistrate’s

claims

arising

findings
out

of

and
these

grievances.
With respect to the claims arising out of Nos. 1213 and
1389, the Magistrate found that although these grievances have
been exhausted, they have not been exhausted as to Defendants
because Defendants were not specifically identified, as required
by

the

Arkansas

policy.

Department

of

Corrections

(ADC)

grievance

Plaintiff objects, arguing that the failure to name

Defendants

was

a

procedural

flaw

that

does

not

prevent

exhaustion because the ADC considered his appeal on the merits
anyway.

The Court adopts the Magistrate’s finding but departs

slightly from the reasoning of the Magistrate in light of recent
Eighth Circuit case law.

See Burns v. Eaton, 752 F.3d 1136,

1140 (8th Cir. 2014) (clarifying that when determining whether a
§ 1983 claim is exhausted for PLRA purposes, the key is whether
the claim at issue and the defendant at issue were actually
considered by prison officials during the grievance process).
After a thorough review of the administrative record, the Court
finds that the failure to name Defendants in No. 1213 and No.
Page 2 of 3

1389 was not a mere procedural flaw, given that there were no
allegations as to how any of Defendants were involved.

The

Court further finds that the specific claims asserted in the
Complaint were not evaluated by the ADC during the grievance
process for any of the grievances attached to the Complaint.
Therefore, the Court, being well and sufficiently advised,
finds that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) is ADOPTED,
with the exception of the difference in reasoning set forth
above.

For the reasons stated herein and in the Report and

Recommendation,

IT

IS

ORDERED

that

Defendants’

Motion

for

Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Robert T. Dawson
Honorable Robert T. Dawson
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3