Martin-Dobson v. Hall et al

Filing 72

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 69 ) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Defendant Officer Michael Graulau's Motion for Summary J udgment (Docket Entry No. 56 ) is hereby GRANTED; and (3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 6/13/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
MARK BRYAN MARTIN-DOBSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARON HALL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-cv-1146
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Griffin

ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate
Judge, recommending that Defendant Officer Michael Graulau’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket Entry No. 56) be granted and the case be dismissed with prejudice. The R & R
provides, in part,
The Court finds that summary judgment should be granted to Defendant Graulau
because Plaintiff’s claim has not been properly exhausted. The PLRA states that:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under
section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner
confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This statute requires a prisoner plaintiff to exhaust all
available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
in the district court. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 528, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152
L.Ed.2d 12 (2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 733, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149
L.Ed.2d 958 (2001); Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1103-04 (6th Cir. 1998).
Once the defense of failure to exhaust is raised, a prisoner plaintiff must set forth
evidence to show that he has complied with the requirements of exhaustion. See
Napier v. Laurel Cnty., Ky., 636 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2011). To establish that he has
exhausted his administrative remedies, Plaintiff must show that he presented his
grievance(s) “through one complete round” of the established grievance process.
Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720, 733 (6th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other
grounds, Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006).

1

It is further well-settled that there is no futility exception to the exhaustion
requirement. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6; Napier, 636 F.3d at 222.
It is undisputed that a grievance system is available to inmates within the custody
of the DCSO and that an inmate who is not satisfied with the decision on his
grievance may file an appeal. See Declaration of Tom Davis (Docket Entry No.
59). It is further undisputed that Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance on
October 18, 2012, about the incident in question, that his grievance was found to
be unsustained on October 30, 2012, and that Plaintiff did not file an appeal of the
denial of his grievance. Id.; Docket Entry No. 59-1.
Plaintiff has not set forth any basis excusing his failure to file an administrative
appeal of his unsustained grievance and thus complete the grievance process
available to him at the DCSO. It is Plaintiff’s burden to rebut the Defendant’s
assertion that he failed to exhaust. See Napier, supra. Although Plaintiff makes
statements in his response to Defendant Graulau’s Statement of Undisputed Facts
that his grievances about the matter were “either lost or disregarded,” that the
grievance system is “terrible,” and that his “appeal [was] never answered,” see
Docket Entry No. 64, at 3, his response is not supported by any actual admissible
evidence such as an affidavit and, thus, his statements fail to support his
opposition to the exhaustion argument made by Defendant Graulau. Furthermore,
in his deposition, Plaintiff stated only that he did not remember whether he filed
an appeal of his denied grievance. See Docket Entry No. 56-1, at 15. His
statements simply fail to satisfy this burden, especially in light of Defendant
Graulau’s affirmative evidence.
Because the Court finds that the failure to exhaust argument raised by Defendant
Graulau requires dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim, it is not necessary to address the
alternative arguments for summary judgment raised by Defendant Graulau.
(Docket Entry No. 69). No objections were made to the R & R.
Where no objections are made to the R & R, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Having thoroughly reviewed the
record in this case and the applicable law in accordance with Rule 72(b), the Court will accept
the R & R.

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 69) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED;
(2) Defendant Officer Michael Graulau’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry
No. 56) is hereby GRANTED; and
(3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3