Case ID: f-appx_240/html/0353-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur BATTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hilton HALL, Warden of Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, Samuel Lacy, Deputy Warden at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, Charlie Harper, Unit Manager at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, Lt. Burse, Lieutenant at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, Mr. Hagan, Sergeant at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, John-1 Doe, at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, John-2 Doe, at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 07-11466
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 5, 2007.
    McNeill Stokes, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Pattie Jane Williams, Attorney General-Department of Law, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Arthur Battle appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Battle alleged that he was beaten by Georgia prison guards while incarcerated at Macon State Prison. We review the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust a claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) de novo. Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207 (11th Cir.2000). Battle did not exhaust his claims by pursuing all administrative remedies before filing his lawsuit as required by PLRA. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). He only made an informal grievance and did not pursue the avenues available for an appeal under the Georgia prison procedures. The exhaustion requirement is mandatory, and therefore Battle’s suit was properly dismissed by the district court. See Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.