Jackson v. Barksdale et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 8/10/2017. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
DEANDRE L’OVERTURE JACKSON, )
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
EARL BARKSDALE, et al.,
)
Defendants
)

Civil Action No.: 7:17cv00031
MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff, DeAndre L’Overture Jackson, (“Jackson”), an inmate formerly
incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison, (“Red Onion”), and proceeding pro se,
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the
defendants, all of whom are employees of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
(“VDOC”), have violated his constitutional rights. This case is before the court on
the Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment, in which they argue that
Jackson’s claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies, (Docket Item No. 20) (“Motion”). None of the parties has requested a
hearing on the Motion, making the matter ripe for disposition. For the reasons
contained in this Memorandum Opinion, I will grant summary judgment in favor
of all of the defendants and dismiss all of Jackson’s claims against them.
I. Facts1
Jackson is a VDOC inmate formerly housed at Sussex I State Prison,
(“Sussex I”), and Red Onion.2 He claims that he was denied necessary medical
1

On a motion for summary judgment, the court may review a number of materials to
determine whether a genuine dispute of any material fact exists, including sworn testimony,
affidavits, sworn pleadings, discovery responses and other materials contained in the record. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(C).
-1-

treatment following an altercation with his cellmate on December 20, 2016, while
at Red Onion. Jackson also claims that the defendants transferred him from Sussex
I to Red Onion on March 22, 2016, by using forged documents and that his rights
were violated when he was placed into general population at Red Onion without
due process. He further claims that his personal property was confiscated and
destroyed without due process following the December 20, 2016, altercation and
that he was forced to take a cold shower in his boxer shorts with no soap, he was
not allowed to dry off, and he was placed in a cold segregation cell without a
mattress or linens.

Jackson also claims that Unit Manager Younce retaliated

against him for filing other lawsuits by placing him into a cell with a known
aggressive inmate who later assaulted him, and, on another occasion, by placing
him into a cell with a high security mentally ill inmate. Finally, he claims that he
has filed some grievances to which he never received responses.
In the Motion, the defendants argue that Jackson failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies with regard to any of the claims contained in his Amended
Complaint, (Docket Item No. 5). In support of the Motion, the defendants have
supplied a sworn affidavit from J. Messer, a Human Rights Advocate at Red Onion
responsible for maintaining offender grievance files.

(Docket Item No. 21-1,

(“Messer Affidavit”), at 1.) In her affidavit, Messer stated that the Offender
Grievance Procedure, set out in Operating Procedure, (“OP”), 866.1, provides the
mechanism by which offenders are to resolve complaints, appeal administrative
decisions and challenge the substance of procedures. (Messer Affidavit at 2.)
Each offender is entitled to use the grievance procedure for problem resolution,
and reprisals are not imposed upon offenders for filing grievances in good faith.
(Messer Affidavit at 2.) Grievances are to be submitted within 30 calendar days
2

The record reflects that Jackson currently is incarcerated at Wallens Ridge State Prison.
-2-

from the date of the incident at issue. (Messer Affidavit at 2.) However, prior to
submitting a regular grievance, the offender must demonstrate that he has made a
good faith effort to informally resolve his complaint, which he may do by
submitting an informal complaint form to the appropriate department head.
(Messer Affidavit at 2.) Prison staff should respond to the offender’s informal
complaint within 15 calendar days to ensure that the informal response is provided
prior to the expiration of the 30-day time period in which an offender may file his
regular grievance. (Messer Affidavit at 2.) When filing a regular grievance, the
offender must attach any required documentation regarding his attempt to
informally resolve the issue. (Messer Affidavit at 2.) Only one issue per grievance
form is addressed. (Messer Affidavit at 2.) Grievances must be appealed through
all available levels of review to satisfy the exhaustion requirement before filing a
lawsuit. (Messer Affidavit at 2.) The filing of an informal complaint without any
further action does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement. (Messer Affidavit at 5.)
Grievances which do not meet the filing requirements of OP 866.1 are
returned to the offender within two working days from the date of receipt, noting
the reason for return on the intake section of the grievance form. (Messer Affidavit
at 3.) When feasible, the offender is instructed how to remedy any problems with
the grievance. (Messer Affidavit at 3.) A copy is made of all grievances returned to
the offender, with the justification for return noted on the second page of the
grievance form. (Messer Affidavit at 3.) If an offender seeks review of the intake
decision on any grievance, he may send the grievance to the Regional
Ombudsman. (Messer Affidavit at 3.) There is no further review of the intake
decision. (Messer Affidavit at 3.)

-3-

If a regular grievance is accepted during the intake process, there are three
levels of review available. (Messer Affidavit at 3.) Level I reviews are conducted
by the Warden or Superintendent of the prison. (Messer Affidavit at 3.) If the
offender is dissatisfied with the determination, he may appeal to Level II. (Messer
Affidavit at 3.) Level II responses are provided by the Regional Administrator,
Health Services Director, Chief of Operations for Offender Management Services
or Superintendent for Education. (Messer Affidavit at 3.) For most issues, Level II
is the final level of review. (Messer Affidavit at 3.) For those issues appealable to
Level III, the Deputy Director or Director of the VDOC conducts a review of the
regular grievance. (Messer Affidavit at 3.) The time limit for issuing a Level I
response is 30 days, 20 days for a Level II response and 20 days for a Level III
response. (Messer Affidavit at 3.) Expiration of the time limit without issuance of a
response at any stage of the process automatically qualifies the grievance for
appeal. (Messer Affidavit at 3.)
Messer stated that a review of Jackson’s grievance file showed that he
submitted Informal Complaint ROSP-16-INF-02470, dated December 11, 2016,
complaining that he did not receive a response from Regular Grievance ROSP-16REG-00413 on November 14, 2016, that he felt like staff were retaliating against
him and that his safety was in jeopardy. (Messer Affidavit at 4; Encl. B to Messer
Affidavit.) Shannon Escoffery responded to ROSP-16-INF-02470 on December
13, 2016, advising Jackson that records showed that the grievance in question was
logged out, and a copy was sent to him on November 14, 2016. (Messer Affidavit
at 4; Encl. B to Messer Affidavit.) The grievance in question, ROSP-16-REG00413, dated October 12, 2016, was a complaint about a power of attorney and
certain copies that he had requested from Counselor Nicole Deel not being timely

-4-

returned to him, causing him to miss a court deadline.3 (Messer Affidavit at 4;
Encl. C to Messer Affidavit; Encl. C to Messer Affidavit.) A Level I response,
dated November 14, 2016, was provided to Jackson. (Messer Affidavit at 4; Encl.
C to Messer Affidavit.) In this response, Jackson’s grievance was deemed
unfounded based upon Counselor Deel’s statement that she returned the copies to
Jackson at the earliest opportunity upon receiving his request and that he provided
no proof of a court deadline when asked. (Encl. C to Messer Affidavit.) It was
noted that Jackson’s request would have been given priority if he had provided
Deel with documentation of such a deadline. (Encl. C to Messer Affidavit.) Level
I grievance responses are sent to the offenders through the institutional mail
system. (Messer Affidavit at 4.) Messer stated that she had no reason to believe
that Jackson did not receive the Level I response, but that he could have requested
another copy of the grievance response. (Messer Affidavit at 4.)
Jackson submitted another Informal Complaint, ROSP-16-INF-02570, dated
December 26, 2016, complaining that his television and other property were
confiscated on December 20, 2016, because there was blood on the items, and he
wanted the opportunity to clean off his television so he could keep it. (Messer
Affidavit at 5; Encl. D to Messer Affidavit; Docket Item No. 30-1 at 12.) Sergeant
Farmer responded on January 3, 2017, advising Jackson that records reflected the
television was disposed of shortly after the incident on December 20, 2016.
3

The corresponding informal complaint to this grievance, ROSP-16-INF-01786, dated
September 21, 2106, also was filed with Messer’s affidavit. (Encl. C to Messer Affidavit.) In this
informal complaint, Jackson stated that he gave a power of attorney, as well as a money
withdrawal form, to Counselor N. Deel on September 19, 2016, so she could provide him with
copies for an upcoming court deadline of September 22, 2016. However, Jackson stated that the
Business Office kept his power of attorney and copies. Unit Manager M. Younce responded to
this informal complaint on October 3, 2016, advising Jackson that he had spoken with Counselor
Deel, who stated that when she picked up Jackson’s paperwork, he did not show or produce a
court deadline.
-5-

(Messer Affidavit at 5; Encl. D. to Messer Affidavit; Docket Item No. 30-1 at 12.)
Pursuant to OP 802.1, which governs Offender Property, and OP 740.2, which
governs Infectious Waste Management and Disposal, staff are required to observe
universal precautions and immediately dispose of any items containing blood.
(Messer Affidavit at 5; Encl. D to Messer Affidavit; Docket Item No. 30-1 at 12.)
Jackson has provided the court with a regular grievance, dated January 4, 2017, in
which he complained about the seizure and disposition of his personal property,
including his television, because it had blood on it from the December 20, 2016,
altercation. (Docket Item No. 2 at 2.) He alleged that the property should have
been returned to him so that he could dispose of it himself. Jackson requested to
be reimbursed for his property and to be transferred to a security level 3 prison.4
This regular grievance, however, was rejected at intake on January 6, 2017, due to
an expired filing period.
The court notes that a Notice of Confiscation of Property was signed by
Jackson on December 21, 2016 which stated that a television, headphones and
mail/legal mail were seized on that date. (Docket Item No. 30-1 at 14.) The
television and mail/legal mail were seized because they had blood on them, and the
headphones were seized because they were “altered.” On this signed Notice,
Jackson was advised that he may appeal the confiscation of property through the
offender grievance procedure, but any such complaint must be submitted within
seven days of receipt of the Notice. It further indicated that the Notice completed
the informal process of the grievance procedure. As stated above, the grievance
procedure normally allows an offender 30 days from the date of the incident to file
a regular grievance. However, the grievance procedure also states as follows:
“Grievances are to be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of
4

Red Onion is a security level 5 institution.
-6-

occurrence/incident … except in instances: … [w]here a more restrictive time
frame has been established in operating procedures to prevent loss of remedy or the
issue from becoming moot.” (Docket Item No. 21-1 at 13.) Jackson appealed the
intake decision to the Regional Ombudsman on January 11, 2017, but the decision
was upheld, noting that the property confiscation form was signed and dated
December 21, 2016. (Docket Item No. 2 at 3.) The regular grievance form itself
states that the Regional Ombudsman’s decision is final, and pursuant to OP 866.1,
if a regular grievance is deemed to not meet the criteria for acceptance and review
by the Regional Ombudsman, this does not result in intake into the grievance
process. (Docket Item No. 21-1, (“OP 866.1”), at 12.) Instead, the issue must be
resubmitted in accordance with the criteria for acceptance. The exhaustion of
remedies will be met only when the regular grievance has been accepted into the
grievance process and appealed through the highest eligible level without
satisfactory resolution of the issue.
Jackson submitted another Informal Complaint, ROSP-17-INF-00035, dated
January 3, 2016,5 complaining that he did not receive any medical treatment or
medication after the December 20, 2016, altercation with his cellmate and that he
was placed in a cold segregation cell while still wet, without shoes or clothes.
(Messer Affidavit at 5.) Nurse Bledsoe responded on January 6, 2017, advising
Jackson that, per Incident Report 16-0484, he refused any treatment from the
Medical Department and that the nurse who assessed him advised him to follow up
with the Medical Department as needed. (Messer Affidavit at 5; Encl. E to Messer
Affidavit.)

5

It is clear that Jackson intended the date of submission to be January 3, 2017, not 2016.
-7-

Jackson submitted another Informal Complaint, ROSP-17-INF-00051, dated
January 4, 2017, and directed to the Warden, in which he complained that after
being stabbed during the December 20, 2016, altercation, no incident report was
prepared by anyone, and if such an incident report had been prepared, he would
have seen a doctor. (Docket Item No. 30-1 at 9.) Instead, Jackson claims that he
was placed on sick call on January 3, 2017. (Docket Item No. 30-1 at 9.) On
January 9, 2017, Nurse J. Bledsoe again responded that, per Incident Report 160484, Jackson was assessed, but refused medical treatment, and he was advised to
follow up with the Medical Department as needed. (Docket Item No. 30-1 at 9.)
On January 23, 2017, Jackson filed a regular grievance, inquiring when a medical
assessment was performed on him, and stating that he never signed any documents
or refused medical treatment. (Docket Item No. 30-1 at 10.) Jackson requested to
be advised what a “medical assessment” consists of, and he requested the medical
and nursing procedures, rules, codes, regulations and documentation related to the
same. He further requested the procedures, rules, codes, regulations and
documentation regarding refusal of treatment. (Docket Item No. 30-1 at 10.) On
February 1, 2017, Messer rejected Jackson’s regular grievance at intake on two
grounds. First, she stated that Jackson was making a statement, as opposed to
voicing a complaint. Second, she noted that the incident occurred on December 20,
2016, implying that the regular grievance was not timely filed. (Docket Item No.
30-1 at 11.) Jackson appealed this decision to the Regional Ombudsman, who, on
February 6, 2017, upheld the intake decision, as the incident at issue occurred more
than 30 days prior to the filing of the regular grievance. (Docket Item No. 30-1 at
11.)
In his Amended Complaint, Jackson makes several general allegations that
he exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his claims. Jackson also
-8-

makes several claims that he filed complaints or grievances to which he received
no response or that he attempted to file complaints or grievances. In his response to
the Motion, (Docket Item No. 30), however, Jackson concedes that the only
grievances he filed regarding his claims were denied at intake and that the intake
decisions were upheld on appeal.
In particular, Jackson stated that he attempted to exhaust his administrative
remedies with regard to his claim that his property had been confiscated after his
December 20, 2016, assault, by filing Informal Complaint, ROSP-16-INF-02570.
Jackson stated that he then filed a grievance. Jackson attached his regular
grievance, dated January 4, 2017, to his Verified Statement regarding exhaustion
of administrative remedies. (Docket Item No. 2 at 2-3.) This document shows that
this grievance was rejected as untimely, and the intake decision was upheld on
review by the Regional Ombudsman. (Docket Item No. 2 at 3.) Jackson also stated
that he attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his claims
that he was denied medical care for his December 20, 2016, injuries by filing
Informal Complaint ROSP-17-INF-00051. Jackson stated that he then filed a
regular grievance, which he attached to his response. (Docket Item No. 30-1 at 1011.) Jackson concedes that this grievance was rejected at intake as untimely and
that the intake decision was upheld on review by the Regional Ombudsman.
(Docket Item No. 30 at 14, 16; Docket Item No. 30-1 at 11.)
On his Verified Statement, (Docket Item No. 2), Jackson also stated that he
had provided evidence of exhaustion relevant in this case in a previous case,
Jackson v. Robinson, 7:16cv00263. A review of the court’s record in that case
shows that Jackson did not provide the court with copies of any informal complaint
or regular grievance forms.
-9-

II. Analysis
With regard to a motion for summary judgment, the standard for review is
well-settled. The court should grant summary judgment only when the pleadings,
responses to discovery and the record reveal that “there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
(1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). A
genuine issue of fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In
considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts and the
reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the
party opposing the motion. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Matsushita, 475 U.S. at
587. In order to be successful on a motion for summary judgment, a moving party
"must show that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's
case" or that "the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter
of law." Lexington-South Elkhorn Water Dist. v. City of Wilmore, Ky., 93 F.3d 230,
233 (6th Cir. 1996). When a motion for summary judgment is made and is properly
supported by affidavits, depositions or answers to interrogatories, the nonmoving
party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings. See Oliver
v. Va. Dep’t of Corrs., 2010 WL 1417833, at *2 (W.D. Va. Apr. 6, 2010) (citing
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)). Instead, the nonmoving party must respond by affidavits or
otherwise and present specific facts from which a jury could reasonably find for
either side. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57.

-10-

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, (“PLRA”), requires a prisoner to
exhaust any available administrative remedies before challenging prison conditions
in federal court. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West 2012). It provides as follows:
“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.A. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is mandatory under § 1997e(a),
and courts have no discretion to waive the requirement. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001)); Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). “[F]ailure to exhaust is an affirmative defense
under the PLRA” and, therefore, must be both pled and proven by the defendants.
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). A prisoner must exhaust administrative
remedies even where the relief sought, such as monetary damages, cannot be
granted by the administrative process. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 85 (citing Booth,
532 U.S. at 734). The Supreme Court has instructed that the PLRA “requires
proper exhaustion.” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93. Proper exhaustion of administrative
remedies for PLRA purposes means using all steps that the agency holds out, and
doing so properly, so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits. See
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90.
Therefore, in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the inmate must
file a grievance raising the claim and pursue the grievance through all available
levels of appeal, prior to bringing his action to court. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at
90. Thus, before Jackson may proceed with his claims in this court, he must first
have exhausted the administrative remedies available to him through the VDOC
pursuant to OP 866.1. “[A]n administrative remedy is not considered to have been
available if a prisoner, through no fault of his own, was prevented from availing
-11-

himself of it.” Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008). “[W]hen
prison officials prevent inmates from using the administrative process …, the
process that exists on paper become unavailable in reality.” Kaba v. Stepp, 458
F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2006).
Here, the defendants have asserted that Jackson failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies with respect to all of his § 1983 claims alleged in his
Amended Complaint. They have supported their argument on this ground through
an affidavit from Messer, as well as copies of various informal complaints and
regular grievances submitted by Jackson. Based on the court’s review of the
record before it, no genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to Jackson’s
failure to exhaust. As set forth in detail above, the VDOC has a grievance
procedure for inmates who seek to challenge their conditions of confinement. A
review of Jackson’s grievance file at Red Onion demonstrates that he has not
properly filed and exhausted any grievances relevant to his pending § 1983 claims
against any of the defendants.
Specifically, evidence has been provided to the court that Jackson filed
informal complaints and/or grievances with regard to the following: (1) an
allegation that Counselor Nicole Deel did not timely return a power of attorney
form and copies to him, which caused him to miss a court deadline; (2) an
allegation that his personal property, including a television, headphones and
mail/legal mail, was confiscated and improperly disposed of; and (3) allegations
that he did not receive medical treatment or medication following the December
20, 2016, altercation with his cellmate and that he was placed in a cold segregation
cell while still wet, without shoes or clothes. With regard to Jackson’s allegations
surrounding the missed court deadline, the court finds that, even if Jackson had
-12-

appealed such a regular grievance through all available levels of review, this
allegation, while contained in Jackson’s Amended Complaint, is against an
individual who is not a defendant in this lawsuit. Next, with regard to the informal
complaint and regular grievance related to the confiscation and disposal of his
personal property, the regular grievance was rejected at intake based on an expired
filing period.

Jackson appealed this intake decision, which was upheld by the

Regional Ombudsman. The regular grievance form itself states that the Regional
Ombudsman’s decision is final, and pursuant to OP 866.1, if a regular grievance is
deemed to not meet the criteria for acceptance and review by the Regional
Ombudsman, this does not result in intake into the grievance process. (OP 866.1 at
12.) Therefore, despite Jackson’s arguments to the contrary, such final intake
decisions do not constitute exhaustion of administrative remedies. Instead, the
issue must be resubmitted in accordance with the criteria for acceptance. The
exhaustion of remedies will be met only when the regular grievance has been
accepted into the grievance process and appealed through the highest eligible level
without satisfactory resolution of the issue. Here, because the grievance regarding
confiscation and disposal of Jackson’s property was not timely filed, he could not,
thereafter, file a proper regular grievance that would have been accepted at intake.
Therefore, I find that Jackson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with
regard to this issue.
Lastly, with regard to Jackson’s claim of failure to provide medical
treatment or medication following the December 20, 2016, altercation with his
cellmate, he filed two informal complaints. The first one, ROSP-17-INF-00035,
alleged that he did not receive medical treatment or medication after the December
20, 2016, altercation and that he was placed in a cold segregation cell while still
wet and without shoes or clothes. Nurse Bledsoe responded that, per Incident
-13-

Report 16-0484, Jackson refused medical treatment and that the nurse who
assessed him advised him to follow up with the Medical Department as needed.
Jackson did not file a regular grievance in relation to this informal complaint.
Thus, he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Instead, he filed Informal
Complaint ROSP-17-INF-00051 on January 4, 2017, stating that no incident report
was prepared by anyone following the December 20, 2016, altercation, and, if such
an incident report had been prepared, he would have seen a doctor. Instead, he
claimed that he was placed on sick call. Nurse Bledsoe responded on January 9,
2017, that, per Incident Report 16-0484, Jackson was assessed, but refused medical
treatment and was advised to follow up as needed. Jackson did, thereafter, file a
regular grievance on January 23, 2017, inquiring when a medical assessment was
performed on him and stating that he never signed any documents or refused
medical treatment. He requested to be advised as to what a “medical assessment”
consists of, and he requested the medical and nursing procedures, rules, codes,
regulations and documentation related to the same. Jackson further requested the
procedures, rules, codes, regulations and documentation regarding refusal of
treatment. On February 1, 2017, Messer rejected this regular grievance at intake for
two reasons: (1) it was a statement, as opposed to a complaint; and (2) the incident
at issue occurred on December 20, 2016, implying that the grievance was not
timely filed. Jackson appealed this decision to the Regional Ombudsman, who, on
February 6, 2017, upheld the intake decision, noting the incident occurred more
than 30 days prior to the filing of the grievance.
First, I find that this regular grievance did not actually grieve the issue of
whether Jackson was denied medical treatment after the December 20, 2016,
altercation with his cellmate. Instead, he merely made a statement that, contrary to
Nurse Bledsoe’s prior response, he did not refuse medical treatment, and he
-14-

requested to be advised as to what constitutes a “medical assessment.”
Nonetheless, even if Jackson’s regular grievance were interpreted to grieve this
issue, it still was not filed within the required 30-day time period. Also, as stated
above, the Regional Ombudsman’s decision, upholding the intake decision, was
final, but it did not constitute exhaustion of administrative remedies. Instead, a
grievance must be accepted into the offender grievance system and, thereafter, be
appealed through all available levels of review. Thus, I find that there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that Jackson failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies with regard to this claim.
Based on the above, I find that there is no genuine dispute of material fact
that Jackson did not exhaust his administrative remedies and that the defendants
are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court notes that the defendants also
argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified
immunity. However, given the court’s disposition of Jackson’s claims based on his
failure to exhaust, I find it unnecessary to address the qualified immunity
argument. Therefore, I will enter summary judgment in favor of all of the
defendants on all of Jackson’s claims, and the case will be dismissed from the
docket.
The court will enter an appropriate order.
ENTERED: August 10, 2017.

Pamela Meade Sargent

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-15-