Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47 .5, th e co urt has determi ned that this o pini on should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30534

RE N O D E C O LLI N S P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. RI CH AR D L STAL D ER , Se c r e t ar y o f Cor r e c t i o ns ; BU RL CA I N , W ar de n; LO U I SIAN A ST A TE PE N I TE N TIA R Y ; C U R LY A LF R E D , C or r ec t i onal O ffic e r a t L o u is ia n a S ta te P e n ite n tia r y ; H E A L T H C A R E P R O V ID E R # 7 1 ; B J OH NSON; HEALT H CARE P ROVI DER # 1 7 ; HEALT H CARE P ROVI DER # 66 ; JO H N D O E , D oct or D efen da n t s - A pp el l ee s

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o r t he M i ddl e D i s t r i c t o f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 3: 06- C V

- 163

B ef ore R E A V L E Y , W IE N E R , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * P ro s e Pl ai nt i f

f

- Appe l l antReno de Col l i ns i s a n i nm at e a t the Loui s i ana S ta te P e n ite n tia r y a t A n g o la ( “A n g o la ”). I n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 6 , C o llin s b r o u g h t t h is
s ui ta ga i ns ta nu m ber of A n gol a of

f i ci al s and em pl oyees ( “ D ef en da n t s” ) pu rsuant United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 26, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30534

An in m a t em ayn o tb ri n ga§ 1 9 8 3a c t i o nr e g a r di n gp ri s o nc o n dit i o n s w ith o ut 1 pr evio u slye xh a u stin gav ail ab lea dm inis tr a tiv e re me di es . 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 9 9 7 e( a). Wedete rmine d th at Collin s’s failur e to respon d to the distric t court’s n oticeth at he 2 must inc ludedetails abo ut his pursuit of administrativ e re medies was no t co ntu macio us a nd 2 t o 4 2 U

. S. C

. § 1983, c l ai m i ng t hat pr i so n of fi ci a l s di sr egar ded m edi c al
r e s tr ic tio n s li m i t i n g t h e ty p e o f w o r k h e co u ld d o . T h e case t ook a seri es of p roce d u ra ltw i sts an d turn s u n ti lA p ri l20 0 8 w h en the m a gistrate jud ge ( “M J ”) determ i n ed that t h e sui t sh ou l d be dis m i ssed becau se C ol l i n s had not exha u st ed t h e avail able ad m i n i st rat i ve rem edi es bef ore f i l i n g sui t
. W h en t h e M J f i l ed h er recom m en da t i on w i t h t h e di st ri ct court , t h e court fai l ed to n ot i f y C ol l i n s. A s a
r es ul t , he di d not f

i l e o bj ec t i ons w i t hi n t he r equi si t e t en- day w i ndow

. A f t er t hat
w i ndo w c l o s e d, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t a do pt e d t he M J’ s f i ndi ngs a nd d i s m i s s e d t he sui t
. C ol l i n s ti m el y f i l ed a n ot i ce of

a pp eal

. W e revers e an d rem an d f or f u rt h er p r o c e e d in g s . I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS The i nc i de nt gi vi ng r i s e t o Col l i ns ’ s s ui t o c c ur r e d i n M ar c h 2 00 5, f o l l o w i ng
w h i ch h e pr o p erl y f i l ed a S t ep O n e gri evan ce pursu an t t o pri son p rocedure. A l m ost a year lat er, in F ebru ary 200 6, C ol l i n s f i l ed su i t i n t h e di st ri ct court f or t h e M i dd l e D i st ri ct of L ou i si an a w h i l e hi s gri evan ces w ere s t i l lun der
c ons i der at i on and t her ef or e unexhaust ed. W i t hi n a f ew m ont hs, t hi s sui t w as 1 di s m i s s e d wi t ho ut pr ej udi c e be c aus e Col l i ns had fai l e d t o de s c r i be t he s t e ps he had t ak e n t o e xha us t hi s ad m i ni s t r at i ve r e m e di e s , t he n fai l e d t o r e s po nd t o t he d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s n o t i c e t h a t h e m u s t d o s o . On Oc t o b e r 3 , 2 0 0 6 , C o l l i n s ’ s S t e p T wo gr i e va nc e w as de ni e d, c o nc l udi ng t he a dm i ni s t r at i ve pr o c e e di ngs a nd s at i s f yi ng h i s exh a u st i on requi rem en t
. I n Ju n e 200 7, C ol l i n s’ s s u i t w as rei n st ated f ol l ow i n g h i s s u cces sf u lapp eal

. D efen da n t s f i l ed th e ir a n sw er i n D ecem ber 2N o. 08- 30534

mayh av e re sult edf

ro m hi s no t h avin gr ec eiv edth a t n otic e. Collins v. Stalder , 23 6 F . App’x 29, 30- 31 (5t h Cir. 2007) (s umm ary cale ndar) (c itin g Berr y v. CI GNA/RSI

-CI GNA , 97 5 F .2d 1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 2 ))

. 2 8U .S .C

. § 6 3 6 (b ). 3 3 2 0 0 7
.D e fe n d a n t s th e n m o v e d fo r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n th e b a s is o f C o ll in s ’s pur po r t e d fai l ur e t o pur s ue a dm i ni s t r at i ve r e m e di e s. T h e M J ag r e e d, a nd
r e c o m m e nded t hatt he di s t r i c t c o ur t di s m i s s t he s ui t
. N o t i f i e d b y m ai lo f

t he M J’ s r e c o m m e nda t i o n ( t he “ Fi r s t Rec o m m e nda t i o n” ) , Col l i ns f i l e d o bj e c t i o ns duri ng t he s t at ut or y t en- day respons e pe r i od, as se r t i ng t hat i ndeed he had 3
s o ugh t a dm i ni s t r at i ve r e m e dy t hr o ugh t he pr i s o n g r i e va nc e pr o c e dur e . O n t he basi s of

C o ll i n s’ s obj ect i on , t h e di st ri ct court rej ect ed the M J’ s Fir st Rec o m m e nda t i o n a nd r e t ur ne d t he c as e t o t he M J f o r f ur t he r pr o c e e di ngs . The M J the n f

i l ed a su p p l em en tal reco m m en d a ti on (t h e “S eco n d R eco m m en d a ti on ”)
s u g g e sti n g th a t D efen d a n ts be gra n ted su m m a ryj u d gm en t b e c a u s e C o llin s ’ s s u it had b e e n f

i l e d bef ore he exh au st ed h i s adm i n i strat i ve rem edi es. Th e di st ri ct court fail ed to n ot i f

y C ol l i n s of

t h e M J’ s Secon d R ecom m en da t i on , how ever, so

— uns ur pr i s i ngl y — Col l i ns f i l e d no o bj e c t i o ns dur i ng t he t e n- da y w i ndo w . The di st ri ct cou rt a dop t ed t h e M J’ s S econd R ecom m en da t i on an d gran t ed su m m ary j udg m e nt t o D e fe nda nt s . O nl y t he n di d Col l i ns r e c e i ve a no t i c e by m ai l t hatt he d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d d is m is s e d h is ca s e . C o llin s tim e ly file d th is a p p e a l. II. A N A L Y S IS T h e g r a v a m e n o f C o llin s ’ s a p p e a l is th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in d is m is s in g h is s u it w it h o u t a ffo r d in g h im t h e o p p o r t u n it y to o b je c t to th e M J ’s S econd R ecom m en da t i on . W e agree.N o. 08- 30534

Goodrum v. Q ua rt erman , 5 4 7F .3 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 5 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8); se e alsoDo u g lassv . 4 Unit ed Servs . Auto Ass ’n , 7 9F .3 d 1 4 1 5 , 1 4 2 9( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 6) (e nb a n c)

. Goodru m , 54 7 F .3d at 2 55. 5 Andrade v. Gonzales , 4 5 9F .3 d 5 3 8 , 5 4 3( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6). 6 28 U. S. C. § 6 3 6 (b ); F ED . R. C IV . P

. 7 2 (b ). 7 Doug lass , 7 9F .3 d a t 1 4 2 8 -2 9 , 1 4 3 0 ; see a lso N et tlesv. W

ainright , 67 7 F .2d 4 04, 410 8 (5 thC ir . UnitB 1 9 8 2 ) (e nb a n c) , overru led on ot her gro unds by Dou glass , 79F .3d at 1 428n .15. On May7, 200 8, the distric t court ente red a revi sed or der to c orrec t atypographical 9 error . J udg ment was entered on May12
. 4 A . St andard of

R evi ew W e rev i ew a g ra n t of su m m a ry j u d gm en t de no vo . I n doi n g so, w e revi ew 4 t h e di st ri ct court ’ s l egal concl u si on s de no vo , bu t i t s fact u al concl u si on s onl y f or c l earer r or . As C ol l i ns i s appear i ng pro se , w e c ons t r ue hi s br i ef l i ber al l y. 5 6 B . M agi s t r at e Judge’ s R ec om m endat i on Iti s b e yo nd d i s put e t hatw he n a n M J f i l e s a r e c o m m e nda t i o n t o t he di st ri ct court on a m att er di sposi t i ve t o the proceedi n gs, t h e di st ri ct court m u st
no t i f y t he pa r t i e s t hatt he y hav e t e n da ys w i t hi n w hi c h t o f i l e o bj e c t i o ns t o t he M J’ s r epo r t
. N ot i f

i c at i on o f

t he par t i es i s m andat or y. 7 8 At Ango l a, l e ga lm ai lt o pr i s o ne r s i s l o gg e d i n b y ad dr e s s e e , da t e , a nd
sen der

. C ol l i ns has subm i t t ed a c opy of t hi s l og f or t he per i od i n ques ti on . It show s t h at n o l egal m ai lw as rec ei ved by C ol l i n s f rom t h e di st ri ct court betw een A p ri l9, 2 0 0 8 (th e d a te o f th e M J ’ s reco m m en d a ti on ) an d M a y 6 , 20 0 8 ( th e d a te C ol l i n s re c e i ve d t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s r ul i ng)

. W e pr e s um e t hatt he r e w e r e no 9 i rreg u l a ri ti es in th e p ri son ’ s m a i l roo m pr oc edur es t hatm on th — an d D efen d a n ts al l ege none. W e t her ef or e co ncl ude that the M J’ s Sec ond R ec om m endat i on w as
n e v e r s e n t t o C o llin s .N o. 08- 30534

See , e. g. , Mc Gil l v. Goff , 1 7F .3 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 4), overru led on ot her gro unds 10 by Kans a Reinsurance Co . Ltd . v. Con gression al Mort

gage C orp. of Tex

. , 20 F.3 d 13 62 (5thC ir. 1 9 9 4); see a lso J

ohnson v. Jo hns on , 194 F.3d 13 09, at *1 (5thCir. 199 9) (su mmary cale ndar) (h a rm le ss erro r a n aly si s r equ ir ed); B rax t o nv . E s t el le , 64 1 F .2d 3 92, 397(5th Cir. Apr. 3 , 1 9 8 1 ); butsee Net tles , 6 7 7F .2 d a t 4 1 0(h ol di n gth a t “n o li mitati ono f th e ri gh t toa pp eal

. . . and n oli m it a t i o no f

th es c o p eo f

a p p e al

. . . s h al lr e s u l tu nl e s s th em a gi s t r a t ei nf o r m s th e parti e s th a t obj e c t i o n s m u s t b e f il e d with i n t e n d ay s af t e r th e s e rvi c e o f a c o py of th e ma gis tr a te ’sr ep ort isma deu po nth em .”).

Had h e b eenaffo rded the opportu nity to obj ect to the MJ’s S econ d R ecommen datio n, 11 Collin s woul d h av e b eenab le to po int ou tt ha t , e ven if hi s suit was initiallypre matur e, b y April 2 008whenthe MJ m ade herdetermination , he w as in fullcompliance with the statut ory requirements an d h ad b eenfor eightee n month s. To the n dismiss solelyonth e groun d th at the ve ry fact of Collin s’s premature filing w as fatal to his claim — even after h e h ad satisfied the § 1 997 e e xh austi on requirement — would not only facilitat e a nd enco ura geg amesman ship bydefe ndants, who coul d wait u ntilanin mate’s statut e o f limit atio ns has runbe fore moving for dismissal, but would also contravene our practice of dismissing pre matur e filin gs without pr ej u dice to pe rm it a pl aintiff t o exh a u st
. See, e.g. , Clifford v. Gibbs , 298 F.3d 328 , 33 1-32 (5th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ); Wright v. Ho ll ings wo rth , 2 6 0F .3 d 3 5 7 , 3 5 8n .2 , 3 5 9( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). Fu rthe rmo r e , C o l l i n s ’ s c a s e h a d b e e n di s m i s s e d a n d th e n r e i n s t a t e d — for which Collin s p aid a secon d filing fee— after

h e h a d exh a u st edhisa dm inis tr a tiv e re me di es . Moreover, thatpri or dismissal, whichwas without prej udic e, was ente red because of C ollins’s failure to note wheth er h e h ad e xh auste d his a dmini strativereme dies and to giv e him a n opp ort unity todo so, if in facthe had not alre ady. 5 N o t ha vi ng be e n no t i f i e d b yt h e c o u r t o f

t he M J’ s Se c o nd Re c o m m e nda t i o n, C ol l i n s had n o opp ort u n i t y t o obj ect t o t h e M J’ s f i n di n gs an d recom m en da t i on s. Indeed , he w as app aren t l y u n aw are t h at t h e proceedi n gs ha d been condu ct ed
an d com pl et ed u n t i lhe w as i n f orm ed that t h e di st ri ct cou rt h ad gran t ed
s um m ar y j udg m e nt a gainst hi m . Gi ve n t he pr e s e nc e o f s o m e c o nf

us i o n i n t he
ca se law as to w h eth er h a rm l ess -error rev i ew i s req u i red w h en the cou rt fa i l s to
n ot i f y a pa rt y, w e pret erm i t such a n an al ysi s here an d i n st e a d h ol d that, on

10 t h e fa c t s o f t h is c a s e , t h e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’s fa il u r e t o n o t i f y C o ll in s o f t h e M J ’s Sec ond R ec om m endat i on and t he t en- d a y p er i od f orf i l i ng obj ec t i ons w as “h a rm ful” per s e . T h at deci si on w as ren dered on groun ds t h at C ol l i n s had not 11N o. 08- 30534

De fe n da ntsr ais e anu mb ero f ad diti on al de fe n se s inth eir b ri ef , b u t wed o n ott a ke 12 th emu p soth a t, on re ma n d, th e di strict co u rt may co n si de r th em inth e firs t in st a n ce . See , e. g. , Lon g v. McC

ot te r , 7 9 2 F .2 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 5 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 6). Venu e i n this case is proper in the Middle District of Loui sian a, in whichAngolais 13 lo cate d. See 2 8U .S .C

. § 1 3 9 1 (b ). 6 been af f orded an opportun i t y t o rebu t
. I n deed , hi s s u cces sf u lrebutt al of

a very
s im il a r a r g u m e n t in h is o b je c tio n to th e F ir s t R e c o m m e n d a tio n , sup ra , w o u ld h a v e in d ica te d th a t th e p a rticu la r iss u e h a d b e e n re so lve d (i n h is fa v o r). 12 C. Change of

Venue C ol l i ns al so r eques t s a c hange of venue t o a voi d f

ut ure er r or s, not i ng t hat he ha s t w i c e ha d t o pa y f i l i ng fe e s b e c aus e o f

t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s e r r o r a nd o ur reversalat an earl i er s t age i n t h i s proceedi n g. W e rej ect C ol l i n s’ s r equ est f or a cha n ge of

ven u e, b u t inst ruct t h e di st ri ct court t o w ai ve an y f u rt h er f i l i n g fees 13 or cha rges associ ated w i t h the rei n st atem en t of C ol l i n s’ s l aw sui t as a res u l t of th is a p p e a l. I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e RE VE RSE t he di s t r i c t c ou r t ’ s di s m i s s alo f Col l i ns ’ s a c t i o n a nd R E M A N D th is ca s e to th a t c o u r t fo r fu r th e r p r o c e e d in g s co n s is te n t w ith th is
o pi ni o n.