Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03807/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03807-0/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. 06-3807

___________

Benny Ray Gully, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Gary D. Maynard, Director of the *

Iowa Department of Corrections; John * [UNPUBLISHED]

Ault, Warden, sued in his individual *

and official capacities; Fontaine *

Walker, Dentist, sued in his individual *

and official capacities; Curt Daily, *

(FDS) sued in his individual and *

official capacities; Dirk Godsey, (FSC) *

sued in his individual and official *

capacities; Jim Glasgow, sued in his *

individual and official capacities; Judy *

Swartz, sued in her individual and *

official capacities; Roxy Alden, sued in *

her individual and official capacities; *

Mike Woolsey, sued in his individual *

and official capacities; Unknown Staff, *

sued in their individual and official *

capacities, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2007

Filed: March 13, 2007

___________

Appellate Case: 06-3807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2007 Entry ID: 3287597
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa. 

-2-

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Benny Ray Gully appeals the district court’s1

 preservice dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. On initial review, the district court determined

that the complaint should be dismissed because, while Gully had exhausted his

administrative remedies on his failure-to-protect and deliberate-indifference claims,

he had not submitted a grievance and exhausted administrative remedies on his

retaliation claim. The court, however, also conducted a merits review under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). 

Administrative exhaustion is an affirmative defense, see Jones v. Bock, 127 S.

Ct. 910, 919-22 (2007); and when fewer than all claims are administratively

exhausted, a plaintiff should be allowed to proceed on the exhausted claims, see id.

at 923-26. Nonetheless, we conclude that affirmance is warranted on the merits. See

Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (review standard for

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per

curiam) (review standard for § 1915(A)(b) dismissal). We agree with the district court

that Gully’s complaint allegations do not support a failure-to-protect claim against the

food-service or kitchen-staff defendants. See Spruce v. Sargent, 149 F.3d 783, 785

(8th Cir. 1998) (to establish Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, inmate must

show he was incarcerated under conditions posing substantial risk of serious harm,

and defendants knew risk existed but deliberately disregarded it). We also agree that

Gully could not base a deliberate-indifference claim on his own opinion as to what

dental treatment he should have received or on the dentist’s alleged negligence, see

Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2006) (disagreement with treatment

Appellate Case: 06-3807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2007 Entry ID: 3287597
-3-

decisions does not rise to level of constitutional violation; to establish deliberate

indifference, plaintiff must show more than even gross negligence); Long v. Nix, 86

F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996) (inmates have no constitutional right to particular type

of treatment); and that the lack of complaint allegations against Gary Maynard and

John Ault required their dismissal, see Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th

Cir. 1985). Finally, we conclude that Gully failed to state a retaliation claim, as he did

not specify any named defendant who retaliated against him or who directed or knew

of the alleged retaliation by unnamed others. See id. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3807 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/13/2007 Entry ID: 3287597