Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07087/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 20 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

EZEKIEL DA VIS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

MIKE MULLIN, Warden; ROBERT 

BERRY, Unit Manager; 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-7087 

(D.C. No. CV-03-248-WH) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before KELLY, O'BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-Appellant Ezekiel Davis, an Oklahoma inmate proceeding pro se, 

appeals the dismissal of his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary damages 

and injunctive relief arising from alleged constitutional violations occurring 

during his incarceration. The district court granted summary judgment to the 

• This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

•• After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material 

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34. l(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 04-7087 Document: 010110593123 Date Filed: 04/20/2005 Page: 1
defendants on the grounds that Mr. Davis had failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

The parties are familiar with the facts, and we need not restate them here. 

Having reviewed the matter de novo and for substantially the same reasons 

iterated in the district court's order dismissing Mr. Davis's suit, we AFFIRM. 

Mr. Davis has clearly failed to demonstrate the exhaustion of administrative 

remedies mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) or complete exhaustion where he did 

file a grievance. See Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) 

(requiring complete exhaustion). 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 04-7087 Document: 010110593123 Date Filed: 04/20/2005 Page: 2