Case ID: f-appx_119/html/0693-01.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

Samuel ORELLANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James B. ZELLAR, Sr., Warden; Unidentified Squier, Sargent; Earl A. Bridgeforth, Correctional Officer III; Byrone L. Grant, Correctional Officer; Brenda D. Spitaleri, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-40732.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Jan. 26, 2005.
    Samuel Orellana, Livingston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jason A. Leboeuf, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before WIENER, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Samuel Orellana, Texas prisoner # 1008987, appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We affirm.

The district court did not err in its summary-judgment, qualified-immunity determination that Orellana had not established the violation of a clearly established constitutional right on either his denial-of-access-to-the-courts or retaliation claims because he failed to argue or demonstrate that his ability to pursue a “nonfrivolous,” “arguable” legal claim was hindered by the defendants’ actions. Christopher v. Harbury, 586 U.S. 408, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002) (citations omitted); see Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 311 (5th Cir.1997).

Further, the district court did not err in dismissing the claims against defendant Spitaleri pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e for Orellana’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Texas has a two-step administrative grievance procedure for state inmates. Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 891 (5th Cir.1998). The record shows that the grievances filed by Orellana do not mention Spitaleri. Accordingly, Orellana did not exhaust the available administrative remedies regarding his claims against Spitaleri.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.