### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-60714 Summary Calendar

VERNON THREADGILL, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v. ROBERT MOORE, Medical Director; KEN KAISER, Medic a l S t aff; TRACY PHILLIPS; NURSE SAMANTHA GONZALEZ; GLORIA PERRY, Medical Director; MARGARETT BINGHAM, Superintendent; LATICHA SWINNEY, Correctional Officer; CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Commissioner, Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:10-CV-378

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Verno n Threadgill, Mississippi prisoner # 13351, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the dismissal without prejudice of h i s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Carnaby v. City of H o u s t o n , 6 36 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary jud g m e n t is appropriate “if the movant U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 6, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60714 Document: 00512000264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2012No. 11-60714

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F E D
. R. C IV
. P

. 5 6(a). We read all facts and draw all inferences in a light that is most favorable to the nonmovant. Dillon v. Rogers , 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010). However, a nonmovant may not overcome summary judgment with conclusory a l l e gations, unsupported assertions, or presentation of only a scintilla of evidence. Hathaway v. Bazany , 507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court determined that c o ntrary to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 199 7 e ( a) , Threadgill failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his civil rights complaint. On appeal, Threadgill asserts that prison officials thwarted his efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies and that he should thus be excused from the exhaustion requirement. He also asserts that he complied with the prison grievance process because he never received a Step One response and he was thus not required to appeal to Step Two. We have excused exhaustio n in s i milar context, on the grounds of estoppel, when a prisoner is able to show that his failure to exhaust was due to reasonable reliance on the actions of the other party. See Dillon , 596 F.3d at 270. However, Threadgill has not demonstrated that he reasonab l y relied on the defendants’ actions in failing to exhaust his administrative remedies. To the contrary, his backlogged grievances were the result of his own litigiousness and were not an i m p e diment created by prison officials. In addition, to the extent t h a t Threadgill’s claim rests on his allegation that prison personnel did not follow the required grievance procedures, h e h as not presented a constitutional claim as

r e q uired under § 1983. See Geiger v. Jowers , 404 F.3d 371, 373-74 (5 t h C i r . 2005). The district court therefore d i d not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. See F E D
. R. C IV
. P. 56(a). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Threadgill’s motion for leave to file

an out-of-time reply brief is DENIED. His motion for appointment of counsel is likewise DENIED.
2 Case: 11-60714 Document: 00512000264 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2012