[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-14256

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:17-cv-00211-MTT-CHW

TRAVIS JONATHAN MITCHELL, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

WARDEN, BALDWIN STATE PRISON, et al., 

 Defendants,

LARRY JORDAN,

Deputy Warden of Security, 

Baldwin State Prison, 

CAPTAIN DEXTER SPIKES, 

Baldwin State Prison, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(September 18, 2019)

Case: 18-14256 Date Filed: 09/18/2019 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Travis Mitchell, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal without 

prejudice of his complaint against Deputy Warden Larry Jordan and Captain 

Dexter Spikes of the Baldwin State Prison. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mitchell complained 

that the officers exhibited deliberate indifference to his safety by failing to 

confiscate a contraband weapon that another inmate used to stab him, but the 

district court ruled that Mitchell had failed to exhaust his available administrative 

remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See id. § 1997e(a). We affirm.

We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F.3d 1152, 1155 (11th Cir. 2005). The Act 

states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions . . . by a 

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such 

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies requires dismissal of a civil action. See

Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Under the standard operating procedures of the Georgia Department of 

Corrections, a prisoner must file a grievance no later than 10 calendar days from 

the date he knew, or should have known, the facts supporting his grievance. 

Officers must respond to the grievance within 40 days, subject to a 10-day 

Case: 18-14256 Date Filed: 09/18/2019 Page: 2 of 4 
3

extension. The failure to respond is treated as a denial that can be appealed. The 

prisoner must appeal within “7 calendar days” of the date that he receives the 

response, that he receives a decision on his grievance, or that the time for a 

decision expires. The operating procedures waive the requirement to appeal for 

grievances that allege “sexual assault and physical force involving non-compliance 

with Department policies” because those grievances are automatically referred to 

the Internal Investigations Unit. The operating procedures define “physical force 

involving non-compliance” as “staff use of force” that violates the “intent of and 

the purpose of written policy and procedures” of the Department.

The district court did not err by dismissing Mitchell’s complaint without 

prejudice for failure to exhaust. The district court accepted as true Mitchell’s 

allegation that he gave an officer in the infirmary a grievance on December 17, 

2015, which was 7 days after his stabbing. See Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 

1083 (11th Cir. 2008). But Mitchell never appealed after the deadline expired for 

Deputy Warden Jordan and Captain Spikes to file a response. Mitchell argued that 

he did not have to appeal because his grievance involved the use of physical force 

in violation of department policies, but that exception did not apply to Mitchell 

because he was injured by an inmate, not by a prison officer. Mitchell filed a 

second grievance about the stabbing on February 4, 2016, on the ground that he 

“never got [a] receipt” that verified the filing of his first grievance. After the 

Case: 18-14256 Date Filed: 09/18/2019 Page: 3 of 4 
4

Warden denied Mitchell’s second grievance on May 10, 2016, Mitchell allowed 

the 7-day deadline to appeal to expire before he filed an appeal on May 20, 2016. 

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Mitchell’s complaint.

Case: 18-14256 Date Filed: 09/18/2019 Page: 4 of 4