Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03839/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03839-0/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. 08-3839

___________

Lawrence Martin Edwards, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Chuck Dwyer, Superintendent; *

Tori Green, Correctional Officer, * [UNPUBLISHED]

SECC; Tamara Cobbs, Individually *

and in her official capacity Southeast *

Correctional Center; C. Dowdy, *

Individually and in her official capacity *

Southeast Correctional Center; *

Investigator Unknown Jules, *

Individually and in his official *

capacity Southeast Correctional *

Center; Dan Martinez, Individually *

and in his official capacity Southeast *

Correctional Center; Missouri *

Department of Corrections; Laura *

Vance, Individually and in her *

official capacity Southeast *

Correctional Center; John *

Williams, Individually and in his *

official capacity Southeast *

Correctional Center, *

*

Appellees. *

Appellate Case: 08-3839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2010 Entry ID: 3639292
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

___________

Submitted: February 23, 2010

Filed: March 1, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Lawrence Martin Edwards appeals following the district court’s1

 entry

of final judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The only issue Edwards raises in his

appeal brief is whether summary judgment was properly granted to defendants Chuck

Dwyer and Tori Green. See Fair v. Norris, 480 F.3d 865, 869 (8th Cir. 2007) (waiver

of claims on appeal). Having conducted de novo review, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med.

Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008), we agree with the district court that the

record showed Edwards had not administratively exhausted his claims against Green

and Dwyer, and thus that dismissal was required. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,

211, 219-20 (2007) (unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court or considered);

see also Moody v. St. Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994) (in seeking

to defeat summary judgment, party must substantiate allegations with sufficient

probative evidence permitting finding in his favor based on more than conjecture or

speculation). Accordingly we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, although we modify the

dismissal of the claims against Green and Dwyer to be without prejudice, see Calico

Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 1998). We also

deny Edwards’s pending motions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-3839 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2010 Entry ID: 3639292