Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03555/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03555-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Greg Harmon
Appellee
Turoty Hayes
Appellee
Grady Newingham
Appellant
Kay Wade
Appellee
David Westbrook
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3555

___________

Grady Newingham, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

David Westbrook, Sgt., Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC; Turoty Hayes, * [UNPUBLISHED]

CO-I, Maximum Security Unit, ADC; *

Greg Harmon, Warden, Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC; Kay Wade, *

Corporal, Maximum Security Unit, *

ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2005

Filed: August 9, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-3555 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2005 Entry ID: 1937905
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-

Arkansas inmate Grady Newingham appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various prison employees for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. We affirm, but modify the dismissal to be without prejudice

and clarify that the dismissal does not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Dismissal is merited because Newingham failed to show he exhausted his

administrative remedies as to his claim that Defendant Arkansas Department of

Correction Director Larry Norris failed to protect him from an assault. See

Kozohorsky v. Harmon, 332 F.3d 1141, 1143 (8th Cir. 2003). Newingham’s

argument on appeal that administrative remedies were unavailable to him because

they did not provide for monetary relief is without merit. See Booth v. Churner, 582

U.S. 731, 734 (2001).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3555 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2005 Entry ID: 1937905