UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ EDDIE MAGALLANES, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. P. HARDING, indivi dually and in his official capacity; SECURITY MAJOR DOE, individually a nd in his official capacity; EDDIE WILSON, individually and in his official capacity; DAN SHANNON, individually and in his official capacity; ROBERT LAMPERT, individually and in his official capacity; STEVE LUNDLY, individually and in his official capacity; STEVE HARGETT, individually and in his official capacity; CORPORAL KENNEDY , individually and in his official capacity; MATTHEW MEAD, individually and in his official capacity; MICHAEL GROOMAN, individually; JOSEPH MARTINEZ, individually; BOBB Y SCHAPER; STATE OF WYOMING; WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WYOMING STATE PENITENTIARY; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1-30, individually and in his/her/their official capacity(ies), Defendants - Appellees. No. 17-8077 (D.C. No. 2:16- CV-00278-SWS) (D. Wyo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel h as determined unanimously that oral argument would not mat erially assist in the determina tion of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Ci r. R. 34.1(G). The case is th erefore ordered submitted FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 12, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 ________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , HARTZ , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

__

__________________ _____________ Plaintiff Eddie Magallanes brou ght suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Wyoming law against several prison officials and inmates arising out of his beating while incarcerated at the Wyoming State Penitentia ry (WSP). The United States Dis trict Court for the District of Wyoming dismissed a ll his claims. On appeal Magall anes challenges only the dismissal of his § 1983 claims a gainst prison officials based o n his failure to exhaust prison administrative remedies and qualified immunity. Exercis ing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Becau se the district court correctly dismissed his claims with prejudice for failure to exhaust , we need not address qualified immunity. “Under the Prison L itigation Reform Act (PLRA), [prisoners are ] required to exhaust all available administra tive remedies prior to filing . . . suit in federal court.”
Braxton v. Zavaras , 614 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2010). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an ag ency’s deadlines and other critical proced ural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing s ome orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90–91 (2006). Wyoming prisoners are required to submit their initial grievances withi n 30 days of the relevant incident.

without oral argument. This or der and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive valu e consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.3 In 2012 Magallanes was placed in an administrative-segregation unit at the WSP after he was involved in an alte rcation with a corrections offi cer. On November 19, 2014, he was released back into a general-population unit. Soo n after being released into general population, three fellow inmates assaulted him, causing a traumatic brain injury that placed him in a coma for a m onth. The State conducted an investigation into the assault that began on the date o f the assault and concluded in April 2015. On December 10, 2014, Magallanes was moved to the infirmary at the Wyoming Medium Correctional Institute (W MCI), which had b etter treatmen t capabilities. He was moved from the infirmary to a se gregation unit in April 2015. In August 2015, nine months after his assault, an out side medical consultant conclud ed that he had made significant improvements in his recovery and might no longer re quire physical, occupational, or speech therapy. B y January 2016 he was able t o file a grievance asking to be returned to general popul ation at the WMCI or to be retur ned to WSP, although this request was denied since classi fication and housing decisions c ould not be addressed under the grievance policy. On March 30, 2016, while still housed at the WMCI, Magallanes f iled a separate grievance concerning his 2014 a ssault. His griev ance was forwa rded to the WSP. The grievance asserted that prison o fficials placed him in general population at the WSP knowing that he would be assau lted by other inmates. The WSP r ejected the grievance as untimely. The grievance manage r indicated that although Magall anes’s injuries excused him from having to meet the 30-da y requirement, h is grievance w as still filed too late after his 2014 assault. On April 3, 2016, he filed two separat e appeals: one to the4 Director of the Wyoming Departme nt of Corrections (WDOC) and an other to the WMCI, where he was still housed. The D irector summarily rejected his appeal since it was not accepted by the WSP and thus could not be considered by the Dir ector. A few days later, the WMCI rejected his other app eal. Ignoring any issue of time liness, the WMCI explained that the State had alr eady conducted an investigation into the assault and did not intend further action. We agree that the grievance was untimely. Magallanes filed his initial grievance in March 2016, far after the 30- day deadline to grieve his Nove mber 2014 beating. Although he was certainly entitle d to additional time because o f his coma, he fails to explain why he could not have f iled a grievance much earlier. He had been released from the infirmary about a year befor e he filed the grievance, and h e had even filed a grievance on an unrelated issue two months earlier. We are not persuaded by Magallane s’s suggestion that the State waived the 30-day limit because the WMCI did not reject his appeal on timeliness grounds. Even if we make the doubtful assumption that the WMCI had authority to hea r an appeal from denial of a grievance by the WSP, the D irector of the WDOC is the high est authority, and he affirmed the untimeliness dismissal. Because Magallanes did not file a timely grievance, he failed t o exhaust administrative remedies and his § 1983 claim was properly dismi ssed. Although Magallanes argues that the distr ict court should have permitted him to amend his complaint, he does not explain ho w he could overcome his failur e to exhaust. The district court’s dismissal with p rejudice was therefore proper. See McKinney v.5 Oklahoma , 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991) (court need not permit plaintiff to amend when amendment would be futile).
We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge