Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04119/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04119-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4119

___________

Ricky L. Maddix, also known as *

Wadud Tahir Wali, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Steven Crawford, Doctor; Tammy L. * Eastern District of Missouri.

Bordeau, Nurse; Karol J. Chestnut, *

Nurse; Desiray Crocker, Nurse; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Marietta Jones, Nurse; Robyn *

Williams, Nurse; Randy Childress, *

Nurse; Linda Roth, Chief Medical *

Administrator; Melissa Clements, *

Director of Nurses; Unknown *

Coleman, Nurse; Sheila Unknown, *

Nurse; David Barnhouse, Correction *

Officer; Shannon Clubbs, Correction *

Officer; Unknown Richards, *

Correction Officer; Unknown Adams, *

Correction Officer; Don Sanders, *

Classification Assistant; Eric Dunn, *

Caseworker; Melody Haney, Functional *

Unit Manager; Unknown Nicholson, *

Caseworker; Ricky Bailey, *

Classification Assistant; Cathy Kline, *

Caseworker; Mail Room Personnel; *

Ian Wallace, Superintendent; John *

Doe, On Site Dentist, *

*

Appellees. *

Appellate Case: 05-4119 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2007 Entry ID: 3278713
1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2007

Filed: February 14, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Ricky L. Maddix appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court dismissed the suit because, among

other reasons, it agreed with defendants’ contentions that Maddix failed to exhaust the

myriad claims raised in his complaint. Upon de novo review, see Nerness v. Johnson,

401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (this court reviews de novo application

of Prison Litigation Reform Act, and for clear error district court’s findings of fact),

we agree with the district court that Maddix failed to exhaust administratively any of

the claims he raised in the instant lawsuit before he filed his complaint, see Johnson

v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (inmate must exhaust before filing suit,

or dismissal is mandatory). Although Maddix contends that defendants thwarted his

attempts to exhaust these claims, the record does not support his contention. See

Sergent v. Norris, 330 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (finding no

evidence in record that inmate was prevented from effectively utilizing grievance

procedures).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. However, we modify the

dismissal to clarify that it is without prejudice. See Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co.

of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 1998).

Appellate Case: 05-4119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2007 Entry ID: 3278713