Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02737/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02737-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2737

___________

Atomic Hill, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Bolin, Sgt., Maximum Security Unit, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

ADC; David Knott, Lt., Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC, originally sued as * [UNPUBLISHED]

“Knott”; Jerome Adams, Captain, *

Maximum Security Unit, ADC, *

originally sued as “Adams”; Tommy *

James, Assistant Warden, Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC, originally sued *

as “James”; R. D. Bailey, Lt., *

Maximum Security Unit, ADC, *

originally sued as “Bailey”; Richard *

Wimberly, Major, Maximum Security *

Unit, ADC, originally sued as *

“Wimberly”; Tiffanye Compton, *

Supervisor, Arkansas Department of *

Correction, originally sued as “T. *

Compton”; David White, Warden, *

Maximum Security Unit, ADC, *

originally sued as “D. White”; Vanieta *

King, Classification Officer, Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC, originally sued as *

“V. King”; Larry May, Director, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

George Brewer, Administrator, *

Appellate Case: 05-2737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2006 Entry ID: 2077935
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-

Arkansas Department of Correction, *

originally sued as “G. Brewer,” *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2006

Filed: August 14, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Atomic Hill (Hill) appeals the district court’s1

 judgment in favor of defendants

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.

As relevant, defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground

that Hill had not exhausted his administrative remedies through the prison grievance

procedure, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 199e(a). The district court concluded Hill failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies. On appeal, Hill has waived any arguments he

may have regarding the exhaustion issue by failing to address the issue in either of his

briefs. See Meyers v. Starke, 420 F.3d 738, 742-43 (8th Cir. 2005) (to be reviewable,

issue must be presented in brief with some specificity, and failure to do so can result

in waiver); Harris v. Folk Constr. Co., 138 F.3d 365, 366 n.1 (8th Cir. 1998) (by

failing to assert grounds for challenging certain rulings, appellant is deemed to have

waived related issues on appeal). 

Appellate Case: 05-2737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2006 Entry ID: 2077935
-3-

Hill also challenges the denials of his multiple motions for appointed counsel,

but we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Hill appointment of

counsel. See Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of

review; pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel

appointed in civil case; factors for district court to consider when determining whether

to appoint counsel include complexity of case and ability of litigant to investigate

facts and present claim). 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2737 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/14/2006 Entry ID: 2077935