Case ID: f-appx_167/html/0830-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Terry SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chris COLLINS; Edwin L. Pugliese, Correctional Officer; Scott Griffin, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-1535-PR.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 15, 2006.
    Terry Smith, Pine City, NY, for Appellant, pro se.
    Martin A. Hotvet and Andrea Oser, Assistant Solicitors General, for Eliot L. Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges, and Hon. CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Christopher F. Droney, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Terry Smith (“Smith”), proceeding pro se, appeals a January 26, 2005 decision by District Court Judge David N. Hurd of the Northern District of New York granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees on Smith’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court found that Smith had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

We affirm the judgment of the court below for substantially the reasons given in the amended report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, as adopted by the district court. The record in this case does not support Smith’s argument that Appellees’ actions inhibited exhaustion of remedies in this case. See Ziemba v. Wezner, 366 F.3d 161, 163 (2d Cir.2004). A letter from the Inmate Grievance Program at the Great Meadow Correctional Facility informed Smith of the relevant policies, but he failed to direct his grievance to the proper facility, as advised in the letter. Furthermore, Smith has not provided any basis for this court to find “special circumstances” that might have justified his delay of approximately three years in filing his administrative grievance. See Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, 677 (2d Cir.2004).

We have considered all of Smith’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.