Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-210_7mi8.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

DUPREE v. YOUNGER 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 22–210.  Argued April 24, 2023—Decided May 25, 2023 

Respondent Kevin Younger claims that during his pretrial detention in 
a  Maryland  state  prison,  petitioner  Neil  Dupree,  then a  correctional 
officer lieutenant, ordered three prison guards to attack him.  Younger 
sued Dupree for damages under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging excessive 
use of force.  Prior to trial, Dupree moved for summary judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), arguing that Younger had failed 
to  exhaust  administrative  remedies  as  required  by  law.    Rule  56  re-
quires a district court to enter judgment on a claim or defense if there 
is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is enti-
tled to judgment as a matter of law.”  The District Court denied the 
motion, finding no dispute that the Maryland prison system had inter-
nally investigated Younger’s assault, and concluding that this inquiry
satisfied Younger’s exhaustion obligation.  At trial, Dupree did not pre-
sent  evidence  relating  to  his  exhaustion  defense.    The  jury  found 
Dupree and four codefendants liable and awarded Younger $700,000 
in damages.  Dupree did not file a post-trial motion under Rule 50(b),
which allows a disappointed party to file a renewed motion for judg-
ment  as  a  matter  of  law.  He  appealed  a  single  issue  to  the  Fourth 
Circuit: the District Court’s rejection of his exhaustion defense.  The 
Fourth Circuit—bound by its precedent which holds that any claim or
defense rejected at summary judgment is not preserved for appellate
review unless it was renewed in a post-trial motion—dismissed the ap-
peal. 

Held: A post-trial motion under Rule 50 is not required to preserve for 
appellate review a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment. 
In  Ortiz  v.  Jordan,  the  Court  held  that  an  order  denying  summary 
judgment on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds is not appealable af-
ter trial.  562 U. S. 180, 184.  Because the factual record developed at