Case 5:16-cv-00013-CMC Document 19 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 62
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`ROBERT SINGLETON
`
`v.
`
`NURSE MAXWELL, ET AL.
`
` §
`
` §
`
` §
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16cv13
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
`The Plaintiff Robert Singleton, an inmate formerly confined in the Bowie County
`Correctional Center proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983
`complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. The parties have consented to
`allow the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to enter final judgment in the proceeding
`pursuant to 28 U.S. C. §636(c). The named Defendants are Nurse Maxwell, Warden Robert Page,
`Sheriff James Prince,and LaSalle Correctional Corp.
`I. The Plaintiff’s Claims
`
`Plaintiff alleges around November 3 or 5, 2015, he was refused proper medical assessment
`and care. He tried to make arrangements to have surgery done which was needed to correct a
`surgery done improperly prior to his incarceration. His doctor had told him to have this second
`surgery as soon as possible, but Nurse Maxwell refused to get his medical records and refused to do
`the proper measures in his case. For relief, Plaintiff asked to be compensated for the Defendants’
`negligence causing his pain and suffering in the amount of $500,000.00.
`II. The Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`The Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment contending Plaintiff did not file
`
`any grievances concerning the events at issue. They attach as summary judgment evidence an
`
`affidavit from Warden Page stating the jail has a two-step grievance procedure and Plaintiff did not
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00013-CMC Document 19 Filed 12/13/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 63
`
`file any grievances concerning the issues raised in his complaint. Plaintiff did not file a response
`
`to the motion.
`III. Legal Standards and Analysis
`
`The law governing the exhaustion of administrative remedies is found in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e,
`
`which 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.
`
`Under this statute, prisoners are required to exhaust available administrative remedies before
`
`filing suit in federal court. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798
`
`(2007); Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515 (5th Cir. 2004). Proper exhaustion is required,
`
`meaning the prisoner must not only pursue all available avenues of relief, but must also comply with
`
`all administrative deadlines and procedural rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 89-95, 126 S.Ct.
`
`2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). This requirement means mere “substantial compliance” with
`
`administrative remedy procedures does not satisfy exhaustion; instead, prisoners must exhaust
`
`administrative remedies properly. Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 268 (5th Cir. 2010).
`
`According to Warden Page, exhaustion of administrative remedies for prisoners of the Bowie
`
`County Jail is done through a two-step grievance procedure. In such procedures, both steps must
`
`be pursued in order to complete the exhaustion process. Johnson, 385 F.3d at 515.
`
`The Fifth Circuit has held district courts have no discretion to excuse a prisoner’s failure to
`
`properly exhaust the grievance procedure before the filing of the complaint. Instead, pre-filing
`
`exhaustion is mandatory and the case must be dismissed if available administrative remedies were
`
`not exhausted. Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785, 788 (5th Cir. 2012).
`
`The uncontroverted summary judgment evidence shows Plaintiff did not exhaust his
`
`administrative remedies because he did not file any grievances concerning the events forming the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00013-CMC Document 19 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 64
`
`basis of the lawsuit. Because the complaint is unexhausted, it must be dismissed with prejudice for
`
`purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis. Id. at 788.
`IV. Conclusion
`
`On motions for summary judgment, the Court must examine the evidence and inferences
`
`drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party; after such examination,
`
`summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
`
`on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue of material fact and the
`
`moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Securities and Exchange Commission v.
`
`Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir. 1994); General Electric Capital Corp. v. Southeastern Health
`
`Care, Inc., 950 F.2d 944, 948 (5th Cir. 1992); Rule 56(c), Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`A review of the pleadings and the summary judgment evidence in this case, viewed in the
`
`light most favorable to Plaintiff, shows there are no disputed issues of material fact and the
`
`Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of exhaustion of administrative
`
`remedies. It is accordingly
`
`ORDERED the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (docket no. 16) is GRANTED.
`
`It is further
`
`ORDERED the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED with prejudice for purposes of
`
`proceeding in forma pauperis for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Finally, it is
`
`ORDERED that any and all motion which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
`
`DENIED.
`
`3
`
`