Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-03028/USCOURTS-ca8-10-03028-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arkansas Department of Correction
Not Party
Bradley
Not Party
Steve Cannon
Appellant
Goodman
Not Party
Green
Appellee
Harris
Not Party
King
Not Party
Landry
Not Party
Larry Norris
Not Party
Reese
Not Party

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3028

___________

Steve Cannon, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Goodman, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Nurse; King, Nurse; Landry, Nurse; *

Reese, Nurse; Bradley, Nurse; Harris, *

Nurse, *

*

Defendants, *

*

Green, Ms., Classification, *

*

Appellee, *

*

Arkansas Department of Correction, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: December 23, 2010

Filed: January 4, 2011

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 10-3028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2011 Entry ID: 3740703
1

The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

-2-

Following entry of judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Steve Cannon

appeals the district court’s1

 grant of summary judgment to Ms. Green, a classification

officer at the prison where Cannon was formerly incarcerated. After careful review,

we agree with the district court that there was no evidence Cannon even attempted to

exhaust administratively his claims against Green as required by the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (PLRA). See King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th

Cir.), cert. denied, 79 U.S.L.W. 3226 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2010) (No. 10-5755) (reviewing

de novo district court’s interpretation of PLRA’s administrative exhaustion provision);

Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir 2008) (reviewing de novo

grant of summary judgment). Accordingly, dismissal was required, see Jones v. Bock,

549 U.S. 199, 211, 218-20 (2007), but we clarify that the dismissal was without

prejudice.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-3028 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2011 Entry ID: 3740703