Source: http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180206_0000642.EAR.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:29:15+00:00

Document:
This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. All objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation.
If no objections are filed, Judge Holmes can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, parties may waive their right to appeal.
Summary judgment is granted to a party when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine dispute as to any fact important to the outcome of the lawsuit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 246 (1986). If important facts remain in dispute, the court cannot grant summary judgment, and the case is set for a trial.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires the Court to dismiss all claims filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that were not fully exhausted prior to the date the complaint was filed. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (declaring, “[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”); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining the proper exhaustion of remedies “means using all steps that the [prison] holds out, and doing so properly”); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding an inmate must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit, and “[i]f exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory”). The specific procedures required for exhaustion are determined by the prison where the inmate is incarcerated-here the ADC-and not by federal law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1997
 v. 
 v.