Case ID: f-appx_331/html/0346-01.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

Wayne Ernest BARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ann SWEETEN; Nurse Practitioner Fuentes; Julie Sweeten, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-40427
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 24, 2009.
    Wayne Ernest Barker, Rusk, TX, pro se.
    Seth Byron Dennis, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Wayne Ernest Barker, Texas prisoner # 900987, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se and in forma pauperis civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Barker also requests permission to file a supplemental appellate brief. The motion to file a supplemental brief is denied.

Barker admittedly made no attempt to pursue prison administrative remedies, but he argues that the dismissal of his complaint was error because the Texas Department of Criminal Justice grievance procedures were not available to him. He contends that he should be excused from the § 1997e exhaustion requirement due to his physical and mental problems, and he argues that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint violates Fed. R.App. P. 28. We find no error in the disteiet court’s dismissal of the complaint. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88-89, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739-41 & n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).

MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED; AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.