Eric Ramond Chambers v. Warden of Alexander Correctional, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied Eric Ramond Chambers’s pro se motion to alter or amend and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court held that Chambers failed to exhaust available administrative remedies and, alternatively, failed to establish excessive force or deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The action was dismissed with prejudice.

Holdings

1. A Rule 59(e) motion was unavailable because no final judgment had been entered before plaintiff filed the motion, and plaintiff otherwise identified no basis for reconsideration.
2. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing his § 1983 action and did not show that the grievance process was unavailable.
3. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's excessive-force claims because plaintiff did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the force was sufficiently serious or used with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.
4. Defendant Moody was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff did not present evidence that Moody knew of and deliberately disregarded a serious medical need.
5. Defendants were also entitled to summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds because plaintiff did not establish a constitutional violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion was proper when no final judgment had previously been entered.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
3. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims.
4. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Defendant Moody.
5. Whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Disposition

dismissed