Edward Bernard Sadler v. DANIEL JOHN MECK, Sergeant

DPS-135 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4105
__________________
EDWARD BERNARD SADLER,
Appellant
v.
DANIEL JOHN MECK, Sergeant; MS. BAKER-SULLIVAN, Nurse;
SEAN BOROSKY, Correctional Officer; CRAIG EDWARD
GREENLEAF, Correctional Officer
__________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 03-cv-01305)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
_____________________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 10, 2005
Before: ROTH, BARRY AND SMITH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed May 9, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
On August 5, 2003, Pennsylvania inmate Edward Sadler filed an action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against several correctional officers and a prison nurse alleging violations
of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as several state-law claims.
Because Sadler fails to show there exists a genuine issue of material fact, we will

-- 1 of 3 --

summarily affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.
Sadler alleges that on July 31, 2001, he was attacked by Correctional Officer Meck
after requesting to go to the prison law library. He claims to have suffered serious
injuries from the assault. Prison authorities told a different story, charging Sadler with
misconduct for assaulting Officer Meck, for which he was found guilty. Prison
disciplinary authorities sentenced him to ninety days in solitary confinement. Sadler was
subsequently charged by the Pennsylvania State Police with assault by a prisoner. He was
acquitted of the offense.
Sadler filed two administrative grievances with prison authorities regarding the
incident. The first, numbered 36095-02, was filed on November 14, 2002. His second
grievance, numbered 41496-03, was filed on February 23, 2003. Both grievances were
denied as untimely. Sadler was equally unsuccessful on administrative appeal. He then
filed the current complaint. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which the
District Court subsequently treated as a motion for summary judgment. In a well-
reasoned memorandum, the District Court granted the motion. It then dismissed the
complaint against Nurse Baker-Sullivan for failure to serve process and the state law
claims for lack of jurisdiction. Sadler filed a notice of appeal.
Our review of a district court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment is plenary.
DeHart v. Horn, 390 F.3d 262, 267 (3d Cir. 2004). We have carefully reviewed the
record, and for similar reasons as stated in the District Court’s thorough memorandum,
find there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Sadler’s Eighth Amendment claim is
procedurally defaulted because he failed to timely bring an administrative grievance. See

-- 2 of 3 --

Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 227-30 (3d Cir. 2004). His First Amendment retaliation
claim fails to assert a protected activity, see Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 333 (3d Cir.
2001), and his due process challenge fails to assert either a deprivation of liberty or
property, see Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 485-87 (1995), or raise substantive due
process concerns, see Donahue v. Gavin, 280 F.3d 371, 379-81 (3d Cir. 2002). Sadler
also brings state law claims, but with no federal question remaining, the District Court is
not required to retain supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
For the foregoing reasons, no substantial question is presented. The District Court
was correct in finding no genuine issue of material fact exists. Accordingly, the judgment
of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --