Bryant v. Corizon, Inc. et al
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
Case no. 13-6022
CORIZON, INC.; MR. PRATT;
and DR. GREGORY McKINNEY
Now on this 30th day of September, 2014, there comes on for
consideration the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) filed by
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) filed by Defendants.
before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 37).
The Court has reviewed this case de novo.
granted and Plaintiff’s Complaint dismissed.
exhausted his administrative remedies, as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
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
The Court finds Plaintiff’s objections to this finding
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
Plaintiff objects, arguing that the failure to name
exhaustion because the ADC considered his appeal on the merits
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.
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
For the reasons stated herein and in the Report and
Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Robert T. Dawson
Honorable Robert T. Dawson
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?