IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60714

Summary Calendar

VERNON THREADGILL,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

ROBERT MOORE, Medical Director; KEN KAISER, Medical Staff; 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:*

Vernon Threadgill, Mississippi prisoner # 13351, appeals the district

court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the dismissal

without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We review the grant of a

motion for summary judgment de novo. Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d

183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-60714 Document: 00512000264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2012
No. 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.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(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 allegations, 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 contrary to the requirements of 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(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 exhaustion in similar 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 reasonably 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

impediment created by prison officials. In addition, to the extent that

Threadgill’s claim rests on his allegation that prison personnel did not follow the

required grievance procedures, he has not presented a constitutional claim as

required under § 1983. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373-74 (5th Cir.

2005). The district court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment

in favor of the defendants. See FED. R. CIV. 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