Case ID: f-appx_73/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Darwin J. HORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Francis CHERIAN, Medical Doctor, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, Ellis I Unit; Earnest Chastain, Physician’s Assistant, Skyview/Hodge Unit; Sandra Tally, Registered Nurse, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division; R.L. Hardy, Radiologist, Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, Ellis I Unit; University of Texas Medical Branch, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-20201.
    Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 20, 2003.
    Darwin J. Horne, pro se, Huntsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Darwin J. Horne, TDCJ-ID #825876, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Horne argues that he did exhaust his administrative remedies, though his grievances were refused as “untimely” and “inappropriate.” We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust. Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir.1999).

We do not consider Home’s appellate arguments that address the district court’s dismissal of a prior 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. “A timely filed notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite” to this court’s review. Dison v. Whitley, 20 F.3d 185, 186 (5th Cir.1994). Horne did not file a notice of appeal from this prior dismissal.

We also conclude that Horne has failed to show exhaustion of his administrative remedies. The untimely filing of grievances does not excuse the exhaustion requirement. See Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863, 867 (5th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.