2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-14-2015

Ronald Williams v. Joseph Nish

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This August is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Ronald Williams v. Joseph Nish" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 876.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/876
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1143

___________

RONALD C. WILLIAMS,

 Appellant

v.

JOSEPH P. NISH, Former Superintendent; 

KAREN ROGERS-SWEENEY, Program Coordinator; 

WAYNE GAVIN, Superintendent; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-11-cv-00396)

District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 3, 2015

Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 14, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
Williams, a prisoner, filed suit against prison officials alleging violations of the 

First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. In an 

order not challenged on appeal, the District Court granted summary judgment as to all but 

two claims: the defendants violated Williams’ rights by (1) requiring prayer and 

smudging ceremonies to be conducted outdoors in inclement weather, and (2) destroying 

and failing to replace the Three Sisters seeds, ceremonial relics used in religious 

ceremonies. The defendants moved for summary judgment on these claims, which the 

District Court granted. 1 

Williams presents only two issues on appeal. First, he claims that the Magistrate 

Judge erroneously denied his requests for counsel during the pendency of the litigation. 

Second, he claims that the District Court erred in dismissing his claim regarding the 

prayer and smudging ceremonies for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies before 

filing suit. We will affirm. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of 

the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, and we will affirm summary judgment if 

“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a 

judgment as a matter of law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 

Williams contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying his requests for 

appointment of counsel. Because Williams did not appeal the Magistrate Judge’s 

 

1 This case has a long factual and procedural history. Because we write only for the 

parties who are familiar with this case, we include only the limited background necessary 
decisions to the District Court, he has waived this issue on appeal. “[A] party who fails 

to object before the district court to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive 

pretrial matter waives that objection on appeal.” Tabron v. Grace, 6 F3d 147, 153 n.2 (3d 

Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Polishan, 336 F.3d 234, 240 (3d Cir. 2003) (“It is 

undisputed that, in civil cases, the right to appeal the ruling of a magistrate judge is 

waived if reconsideration before the district court is not sought in a timely fashion.”). 

Williams contends the District Court erred in dismissing as unexhausted his claim 

that the prison unlawfully required religious smudging ceremonies to be held outdoors. 

Upon review, we conclude that there is no arguable basis in law or fact to overturn the 

District Court’s determination that Williams did not exhaust his administrative remedies 

before filing suit. The Prison Reform Litigation Act (PLRA) requires that a prisoner 

exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) before bringing suit in 

federal court. See also Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001); Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 

65, 74 (3d Cir. 2000). This “exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about 

prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and 

whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” 

As the District Court concluded, there is no record evidence that Williams filed a 

request for administrative remedies on his claims regarding the smudging ceremonies 

before he filed that claim in federal court and, thus, he failed to comply with the PLRA’s 

mandatory exhaustion requirement. The record contains no grievance claiming that the 

prayer or smudging ceremonies were held outdoors in inclement weather or were 

 

to decide the issues before us.
cancelled. We further note that Williams did not assert in the District Court that he 

exhausted this claim. Rather, Williams argued that the defendants waived exhaustion as 

an affirmative defense and that, in any event, his failure to exhaust should be excused as 

futile. We agree with the District Court that the defendants did not waive their right to 

assert their affirmative defense. Moreover, there is no merit to Williams’ contention that 

he need not file a grievance because doing so would be futile. See Nyhuis, 204 F.3d at 

71 (holding that exhaustion under the PLRA is not subject to a “futility exception.”). 

Because the record contains no evidence that Williams exhausted this claim, we will 

affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.

On appeal, Williams claims that he did in fact attempt to exhaust this claim by 

filing two grievances, but that prison officials confiscated his copies thereof during a 

retaliatory search of his prison cell. However, Williams did not present this argument in 

the District Court; although Williams did allege that prison officials confiscated other 

documents relating to this case, he did not claim that they took his copies of these 

grievances. Because Williams did not present this argument to the District Court, we will 

not consider it for the first time on appeal. See Harris v. City of Phila., 35 F.3d 840, 845 

(3d Cir. 2010) (“This court has consistently held that it will not consider issues that are 

raised for the first time on appeal.”).

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.2

 

2 We deny as moot the appellee’s motion to strike the supplemental appendix Williams 

attached to his reply brief.