## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2371

___________ Joe Louis Ealey, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Dora Schriro; Paul Herman; Patricia * Churchill; Tim Kniest; Lisa Jones; * Dale Riley; George A. Lombardi; * Appeal from the United States Steve Long; Mike Groose; Tony * District Court for the Gammon; Theresa Thornburg; Jim * Eastern District of Missouri. Moore; Tom Anderson; American * Brands, Inc.; Liggett Group, Inc.; * [UNPUBLISHED] Brooke Group, Inc.; Eve Holdings, * Inc.; RJR Nabisco Holdings * Corporation; Phillip Morris Cos., * Inc., * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 21, 2000 Filed: March 2, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. -2- Joe Louis Ealey appeals from the District Court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment on one of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Supp. III 1997) claims, and the dismissal of his remaining claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (Supp. III 1997). Ealey, an inmate at Moberly Correctional Center, filed a complaint alleging that defendants had repeatedly exposed him to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), deliberately placed him with smoking cellmates over his objections, and failed to correct his ETS-related health problems and to enforce tobacco-related policies. Ealey hadfiled only one ETS-related grievance–involving his placement with a smoking cellmate in September 1995–which was administratively exhausted.
After conducting a de novo review of the record, see Mayard v. Hopwood , 105 F.3d 1226, 1227-28 (8th Cir. 1997), we conclude the District Court properly granted summary judgment on Ealey’s claims surrounding the September 1995 incident, because Ealey was promptly separated from his cellmate and thereafter was housed only with non-smokers. See Weaver v. Clarke , 120 F.3d 852, 854 (8th Cir. 1997) (where defendants took action to house inmate in smoke-free cell and took reasonable steps to insure cellmate observed no-smoking rule, no deliberate indifference found), cert. denied , 522 U.S. 1098 (1998).
As to the exhaustion-of-remedies issue, section 1997e(a) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Ealey alleges, and we must take as true for present purposes, that prison authorities threatened him with retaliation if he filed grievances. It thus may be that the facts-3-

allegedby Ealey would make administrative remedies unavailable. Rather than wrestle withthat issue, which is not without difficulty, we turn directly to the merits of Ealey's remaining claims. In doing so, we conclude that Ealey's complaints have either been adequately addressed by prison officials or are trivial. We thus reject these meritless section 1983 claims and direct the District Court to dismiss them with prejudice.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed except insofar as the court dismissedEaley's non-exhausted claims without prejudice. For the reasons stated, the di smissal of all of Ealey's claims shall be with prejudice. Ealey’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.