Summary
This memorandum opinion grants the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a pro se civil rights action brought by a Virginia inmate under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff alleged that a correctional officer confiscated his religious medallion and violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act because his Level II grievance appeal was untimely and did not comply with mandatory prison procedures. Consequently, the remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Smith exhausted the administrative grievance procedures required by 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a)
- Whether summary judgment was appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
Holdings
- Smith failed to exhaust the required administrative remedies because his Level II appeal was untimely, so his §1983 claims are barred.
- Summary judgment was proper because there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding exhaustion of remedies.
Key quotations
“Summary judgment must be rendered “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”” (at 56(a))
“Federal law requires that “[n]o action shall be brought … until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”” (at 1997e(a))
Factual background
Incarcerated plaintiff Harry Smith alleged that Sgt. Morgan confiscated his religious medallion and failed to return it. Smith filed a written complaint and a regular grievance, but the grievance was deemed untimely and his appeal was filed after the statutory deadline, resulting in a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Procedural history
The court previously granted a motion to dismiss against other defendants. The remaining defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted.