Court Opinion

ID: 9400349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 00:01:49.142274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:43.933289
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60461        Document: 00516778457             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                FILED
                                                                              June 7, 2023
                                      No. 22-60461
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                    ____________

   Jarrett Romero Nelson,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Billy Sollie; Melissa McCarter; Mary Jo Robinson;
   Daphne Barr,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:19-CV-796
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Plaintiff-Appellant Jarrett Romero Nelson, Mississippi prisoner #
   K8198, appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
   lawsuit against Sheriff Billy Sollie, Major Mellissa McCarter, Mary Jo
   Robinson, and Daphne Barr. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60461        Document: 00516778457        Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/07/2023

                                    No. 22-60461

          Nelson alleges that he was denied medical care and subjected to
   inadequate prison conditions. As his contentions are directed solely toward
   the district court’s order granting summary judgment, Nelson has abandoned
   any challenges to the earlier partial dismissals of his claims against Detective
   Vann and Officer Anderson as (1) frivolous and (2) for failure to state a claim.
   He has also abandoned any challenge to the dismissal without prejudice of his
   claims against the medical staff, Lieutenant Gowdy, Officer Shaffer, Officer
   Eagan, and Sergeant Freeman. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25
   (5th Cir. 1993); see also Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,
   813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Neither shall we consider new claims that
   were not raised before the district court. See Martinez v. Pompeo, 977 F.3d
   457, 460 (5th Cir. 2020); Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342
   (5th Cir. 1999).
          We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.
   Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is
   appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
   material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
   Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
          The undisputed summary judgment evidence here establishes that the
   Lauderdale County Detention Facility where Nelson was housed has a two-
   step administrative review process. First, an inmate must file a written
   grievance on a Grievance Report/Request Form. Then, if dissatisfied with
   the result, the inmate must file a written appeal within three days after
   receiving the initial decision. The evidence here demonstrates that during the
   relevant time period, Nelson never filed a written grievance regarding (1) the
   denial of medical or dental care, (2) the quality of his food, or (3) the
   conditions of his cell during the relevant time period. As for the grievances
   that he did file, Nelson never filed an appeal and thus failed to complete the
   requisite two-step process.

                                              2
Case: 22-60461      Document: 00516778457           Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/07/2023

                                     No. 22-60461

          Nelson concedes that he was aware of the grievance procedure but
   claims that he in fact exhausted his remedies by filing a grievance to which he
   never received a response. However, his assertion is wholly conclusional and
   is insufficient to survive summary judgment. See Duffie v. United States, 600
   F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir. 2010). His assertion that he “grieved verbally to
   officers” is unavailing because the prison policy requires that step-one
   grievances be submitted in writing on a prisoner-grievance form. Nelson’s
   contention that he should not have been required to exhaust his remedies
   because any grievances would have had to be submitted to officers about
   whom he was complaining and were thus unlikely to succeed is meritless. See
   Wilson v. Epps, 776 F.3d 296, 299–300 (5th Cir. 2015); Cowart v. Erwin, 837
   F.3d 444, 451 (5th Cir. 2016).
          The uncontroverted summary judgment evidence confirms that
   Nelson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing the instant
   lawsuit, so he cannot show any error in the summary judgment dismissal of
   his claims for failure to exhaust. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Wilson, 776
   F.3d at 299–300; Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785, 788 (5th Cir. 2012). The
   district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                              3