Snyder v. Corrective Care Solutions Inc et al
ORDER ADOPTING 53 and 54 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Further granting 30 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on February 22, 2016. (hnc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
EDWARD CHARLES SNYDER
CASE NO. 15-CV-6034
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al
Before the Court are the Report and Recommendations filed on January 5, 2016 by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF Nos. 53-54). Judge Bryant recommends that the Defendant Griffin’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF
Nos. 21, 30) be granted. Judge Bryant also recommends that Defendants Corrective Care Solutions,
Beasley, and Vowell’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) be granted. These motions by
the Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the hernia
grievances that are at issue in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 27). Judge Bryant agreed
and recommends that Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants be dismissed. Plaintiff
filed objections to Judge Bryant’s findings. (ECF No. 55). After reviewing the record de novo, the
Court adopts Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendations as its own.
Plaintiff’s objections reference a “new claim” that was filed in April 2015. The Court
assumes Plaintiff is referencing his Amended Complaint that was docketed on June 26, 2015. (ECF
No. 27). Plaintiff appears to be under the impression that Judge Bryant failed to consider the fact
that some of his grievances had been exhausted by the time his Amended Complaint was filed.
Plaintiff is mistaken. Judge Bryant considered Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and his findings
were based on the law as it relates to the Amended Complaint. Judge Bryant found that Plaintiff had
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his suit on April 6, 2015. (ECF No. 2).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, mandates exhaustion of available
administrative remedies before an inmate files suit. Plaintiff’s later-filed Amended Complaint does
not change the fact that he originally filed this law suit before his administrative remedies had been
exhausted. The Court must look to the time of the original filing to determine whether there has
been exhaustion. Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627-628 (8th Cir. 2003) (“If exhaustion was not
completed at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory.”).
The Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections and adopts each Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 53-54) as its own. For the reasons stated herein and above, as well as those contained in
the Report and Recommendations, Defendant Griffin’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 21, 30) and
Defendants Corrective Care Solutions, Beasley, and Vowell’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 37) should be and hereby are GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of February, 2016.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
The Court notes that Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendations state that the
dismissal should be with prejudice. However, because some of Plaintiff’s grievances were
administratively exhausted after Plaintiff filed this suit, he could conceivably re-file his claims as
to those exhausted grievances. Accordingly, the Court finds that a dismissal without prejudice is
more appropriate in this case.
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?