Washington v. King et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document53 ~~ Filed 02/27/25 Page 1 of 16 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION
JEROME EDWARD WASHINGTON PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:24-cv-04021-SOH-BAB

JEFFIE WALKER; WAYNE EASLEY;
DANIEL HINES; KEITH MOORE; DEFENDANTS
STEVEN KING; and LISA DAVIDSON;

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Jerome Edward Washington, currently an inmate of the Arkansas Division of
Corrections, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O.
Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose
of making a Report and Recommendation.

Currently before the Court is Defendants Jeffie Walker, Daniel Hines, and Sheriff Wayne
Easley’s (“Miller County Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment on the limited issue of
exhaustion. (ECF No. 35). Plaintiffresponded. (ECF No. 39). After consideration, the Court
recommends the Miller County Defendants’ Motion be granted and Plaintiffs claims against them
be dismissed.

I BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original Complaint and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP Motion”) on March 4, 2024, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). The

case was transferred to this Court on March 5, 2024. (ECF No. 3). The Court granted Plaintiff's
1

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
IFP Motion on March 7, 2024. 	(ECF No. 6). 	At all times relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, he was
a pretrial detainee in the Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”) in Texarkana, Arkansas.
Plaintiff asserted multiple claims against twelve separate defendants in his Complaint: David P.
Cotton, Miller County Prosecuting Attorney; Jason Mitchell, Miller County Public Defender;
Jeffie Walker, Warden of MCDC; Wayne Easley, Sheriff of Miller County; Daniel Hines, Corporal
at MCDC; Keith Moore, Corporal at MCDC; Golden Adams, Captain at MCDC; Officer Miller,
Lieutenant at MCDC; Keegan Daigle, inmate at MCDC; Steven King, training staff at MCDC;
Lisa Davidson, nurse at MCDC; and David L. Whitt, physician at Wadley Regional Medical
Center. 	(ECF No. 2, pp. 2-3).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims he was assaulted by fellow inmate Keegan Daigle on
March 24, 2022, for approximately ten minutes around 8:00 pm and then again at approximately
8:15 pm, and a third time at 8:25 pm. 	(ECF No. 2, p. 5). 	As a result of these assaults, Plaintiff’s
right eye socket was crushed and required reconstructive surgery. 	Plaintiff’s left eye socket and
orbital bone were also injured and still required repair upon his release from the MCDC. 	Finally,
Plaintiff’s right collar bone was broken. 	Id.
Immediately following the assault, Defendant Moore took Plaintiff to medical to have his
blood sugar tested. 	Plaintiff advised Defendant Moore of the assaults and requested grievance
paper or access to the KIOSK, but Defendant Moore denied Plaintiff both requests. 	Id. at 5.
Defendant Moore also advised Plaintiff not to “cause problems with the nurse (Lisa Davidson)”
while she checked his blood sugar because “he didn’t want to fill out an incident report.” 	Id. at
6. 	During his blood sugar check, Defendant Davidson did not notice Plaintiff’s injuries even
though he was bleeding and starting to bruise. 	Id. 	Plaintiff again asked Defendant Moore for a
grievance and was denied. 	Id. 	Plaintiff then specifically alleges:
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
I asked [Defendant] Moore once again for a grievance, once again he refused, so I asked
for my lawyer (Jason Mitchell) & was denied, then asked for him (Moore) to call his
supervisor & was refused. 	Next I asked to talk to the Prosecutor (David P. Cotton) & was
told to stop being a problem or I would regret it & was put back in the pod where I had
gotten assaulted.
Id. at 6.
At some point in the night of March 24, 2022, Defendant Moore and Defendant Hines
determined Inmate Daigle assaulted Plaintiff and moved Plaintiff to a Security Housing Unit. 	Id.
Plaintiff claims an unknown officer watching his pod camera should have caught the assault sooner
and reported it to his supervisors—Defendants Walker, Easley, King, Davidson, Mitchell, and
Cotton. 	According to Plaintiff, earlier detection would have prevented Plaintiff from being
assaulted the second and third time. 	Id. at 7. 	Plaintiff then claims:
So by 9:00 am on 3/25/22 my injuries was noticed by the nurse [Defendant] Davidson &
they were obviously bad enough for her to call the Director of Nursing (Her boss & the
head nurse that trained her) [Defendant King] to find out what to do & he . . . told her to
get me to the hospital for X-rays (Wadley Regional Medical Center.)
Id.
For his official capacity claim, Plaintiff states he is suing for the violation of MCDC SOP
09.01. 	Plaintiff then lists out the text of the MCDC SOP he claims Defendants violated. 	Plaintiff
goes on to state: “I believe polices were ignored & my rights were violated of this & these are my
right that I feel were violated by these events.” 	Id. at 8-9. 	Finally, Plaintiff claims the
supervisors at the MCDC did not properly train on the MCDC policies. 	Id.
As relief Plaintiff seeks, compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief.
Plaintiff would also like the MCDC staff to be better trained, and he seeks attorney’s fees. 	Id. at
10.
Previously, the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims
asserted against David P. Cotton, Jason Mitchell, Golden Adams, Officer Miller, Keegan Daigle,
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
and David Whitt. 	These Defendants were dismissed from the case leaving only Defendants Jeffie
Walker, Wayne Easley, Daniel Hines, Keith Moore, Steven King, and Lisa Davidson. 	(ECF No.
17). 	Also at the screening stage, the Court interpreted Plaintiff’s Complaint to state the following
claims against the remaining Defendants: (1) a failure to protect claim regarding his assault; (2) a
denial or delay of medical care claim regarding his injuries resulting from the assault; (3) an equal
protection claim regarding the assault; (4) an access to his lawyer claim; (5) an individual capacity
failure to train claim on all supervisory Defendants; and (6) an official capacity claim regarding
the policy and procedures of the MCDC and the failure to train on said policies. 	(ECF No. 8).
In their Motion and supporting Brief, Miller County Defendants move to dismiss all claims
against them because Plaintiff failed to file any grievances related to the claims he alleges in his
Complaint. 	(ECF No. 36). 	Specifically, Defendants argue Plaintiff was aware of the MCDC
grievance procedure, knew how to utilize it, and actually used it to file unrelated complaints and
grievances between the time of the assault at issue here and the filing of his Complaint. 	Id. at 5.
Accordingly, Defendants assert Plaintiff wholly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies,
therefore, they are entitled to dismissal pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
1997(e)(a). 	(“PLRA”).
In support of their Motion, Miller County Defendants produced the MCDC Grievance
Procedure, an Affidavit from Al Landreth the Jail Administrator of the MCDC, and Plaintiff’s
complaints and requests filed during the time at issue here. 	(ECF Nos. 37-1, 37-3, 37-4).
In his Affidavit, Mr. Landreth testifies he is the custodian of records at the MCDC and the
below included snap shots are accurate copies of: (1) Plaintiff’s “requests and grievances;” and (2)
the MCDC Grievance Procedure. 	(ECF No. 37-1, p. 1). 	Mr. Landreth also testified Plaintiff
filed approximately “nine requests and grievances” between September 9, 2021 and March 4,
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
2024—the date he filed this suit. 	Id. at 2. 	According to Mr. Landreth, none of these nine
complaints/grievances related to the claims Plaintiff asserts in his Complaint. 	Id. 	Finally, Mr.
Landreth testified Plaintiff was allowed at least one hour per day, after the assault on March 25,
2022, whether he was in a book-in or isolation cell, in which he could have filed complaints or
grievances. 	Id. 	As support for this statement, Mr. Landreth points to the three requests and
complaints Plaintiff filed between the assault (on March 25, 2022) and the filing of his Complaint
(March 4, 2024):
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Mr. Landreth also enumerated the relevant portions of the MCDC Grievance Procedure
relating to exhaustion in his Affidavit. 	Including:
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document53 ~~ Filed 02/27/25 Page 7 of 16 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

MILLER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
DETENTION DIVISION
Inmate Rights, Complaints & Grievances SOP 09.01

A. PURPOSE: The purpose of this procedure is to state explicitly the rights of inmates and
provide a method of safeguarding these rights.

B. SCOPE: This procedure shall apply to all Corrections Personnel.

C. POLICY: The Miller County Jail affirms that it shall protect and promote the safety and
Constitutional Rights of inmates and shall seek a balance between the expression of
individual rights and the preservation of facility order and security. Procedures for
inmates to file a complaint or grievance are established.

D. DEFINITIONS:

COMPLAINT- A verbal and/or written communication with staff for informal resolution of an
incident, policy, procedure, or condition within the jail which personally/directly affects the
inmate. These may be submitted through the KIOSK in the Housing Areas.

GRIEVANCE- Written communication for formal resolution of an incident, policy, procedure,
or condition within the jail which personally affects the inmate filing the grievance. A
grievance can only be made subsequent to filing a written complaint and receiving a
written response.

NOT SUSTAINED — The investigation revealed the allegations were not true/accurate, or
the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the allegations.

LEGAL MAIL — Correspondence addressed to or received fram the courts, attorneys, public
officials or news media, whether received through the postal service or hand delivered to
the facility by the sender or their representative.

SUSTAINED - The investigation revealed sufficient evidence to support or substantiate the
reported allegation(s) occurred.

WORKING DAYS- Shall mean Monday thru Friday, excluding holidays.

Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document53 ~~ Filed 02/27/25 Page 8 of 16 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

3. COMPLAINTS
a. Inmate complaints shall be submitted through the KIOSK.

b, Inmate requests/concerns/complaints shall be reviewed daily (excluding
weekends and holidays) and routed to the appropriate person to address. A
response to aif complaints shall be provided to the inmate in a timely manner.

c. Complaints directed to a particular supervisory level (i.e. Captain or Major) does
not require that they respond. Complaints will be forwarded to the lowest
appropriate supervisory level to address and respond.

d. Multiple copies of the same complaint, directed to multiple supervisory levels will
be combined and addressed at the lowest level appropriate.

é, Appropriate criminal charges fer filing a false report and/or perjury may be pursued.
Complaints which have already been answered do not require additional
responses. Repetitive complaints shall be returned to the inmate.

f. The supervisor addressing the complaint shall ensure a response is delivered to
the inmate.

4. GRIEVANCES

a. The Jail Warden or designee is responsible for the coordination and management
of the grievance procedures. Inmates who cannot resolve a complaint through the
procedure using the KIOSK shall have access to a grievance procedure. Inmate
grievances which are determined to be untruthful/frivolous will be considered the
same as lying to staff members and appropriate sanctions may be imposed.
Appropriate criminal charges for filing a false report and/or perjury may also be
pursued, Grievances and appeals which have already been answered do not
require additional responses. Repetitive grievances or appeals shall be returned
to the inmate.

1) Inmates may not grieve the following matters:
a) State and federal court decisions;

b) Local, state and federal laws and regulations;

Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document53 ~~ Filed 02/27/25 Page 9 of 16 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

¢) Classification decisions;
d) Other matters beyond the control of the Miller County Sheriff's Office.
2) Inmates may grieve the following matters:

a) The substance, interpretation and application of policies, rules, and
procedures of the Miller County Jail that affect them personally/directly.
Inmates may not grieve on behalf of another inmate.

b) Staff retaliation for filing a grievance, appeal, or for participating in an inmate
gnevance proceeding;

é) Incidents occurring within the facility that affect them personally/directly
including a disciplinary decision;

d) Any matter relating to conditions of care or supervision within the authority
of the Miller County Jail.

3) Grievances shall be routed to the Warden or Risk Management Officer. All
grievances must be responded to within the following established time frames:

a) Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of a grievance, the grievance shall
be reviewed and if applicable thoroughly investigated. The investigation
results shall be provided to the Jail Warden or RM Officer, in writing.
Grievances requiring extensive research and documentation may require a
longer period of time for responses. The Jail Warden may extend response
time periods for a reasonable period if necessary. The extension shall be
communicated in writing to the complainant.

b) The Jail Warden will have ten (10) working days from the date of the review,
or when the investigation is complete to review the grievance results and
provide the inmate a written response,

4) Inmates must follow the below procedures to submit a grievance;

a) Ail grievances shall be submitted on a Request for Administrative Remedy
Form, jall form 09.014 obtainable from a shift officer or supervisor.

b)} At all levels of the grievance or appeal process, it will be the responsibility
of the inmate to present only specific facts and circumstances directly
relating to the complaint. The inmate should be brief and concise, stating
only one issue per form. The inmate should also state the remedy which
they are seeking and state what the original complaint addressed.
Grievances received without an original complaint and response shall be
promptly returned.

Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document53 ~~ Filed 02/27/25 Page 10 of 16 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

ee A Pl Hig] FEY eae WW AWE aS Oy ee Re eee
inmate, the form shall be routed to the Facility Warden or Risk Management
Officer. A grievance may be returned to the inmate for resubmission, if it:

(1) Contains more than one issue;

(2) Does not follow the prescribed format;

(3) Seeks a remedy for matters beyond the facility's control;
(4) Contains profanity, uniess quoting;

(8) Does not have an original complaint on file.

5) The Warden or RM Officer shall assign the grievance a case number and log
the required information. A thorough investigation shall be conducted and a
sustained or not sustained finding rendered and the case number closed
out. The Request for Administrative Remedy Form shail be forwarded to the
Lieutenant or Captain for distribution.

6) The Lieutenant or Captain shall make a copy of the Request for
Administrative Remedy Form, acknowledged by the Jail Warden or RM Officer,
for the inmate's Classification File. The Lieutenant or Captain shall complete
jail form MCSO "Inmate Acknowledgement for Grievance". The original
Request for Administrative Remedy Form shall be delivered to the inmate. The
inmate shall acknowledge delivery in writing on the “Inmate Acknowledgement
for Grievance" form.

7) Ifa grievance is determined to be an allegation of misconduct against an MCDC
employee, the allegations shall be investigated by the appropriate authority, in
accordance with agency policy and at the discretion of the Jail Warden.

8} The inmate may appeal the result of the grievance findings to the Jail Warden
by stating they wish to APPEAL the FINDINGS ON THE ‘INMATE
ACKNLOWLEDGEMENT FORM".

9) If the Jail Warden responded to the grievance their decision is final:

a} The original Request for Administrative Remedy Form, and other relevant
documents, shall be forwarded to the Jail Warden or designee within fifteen
(15) calendar days from the date the inmate signed the “Inmate
Acknowledgement for Grievance" form. The Risk Management Officer shall
assign the appeal a case number and log the required information. Appeals
received after the fifteen (15) calendar days shall be denied and
returned to the inmate.

b) The Jail Warden or designee shall affirm, reverse or modify the decision
within ten (10) working days of receipt of the appeal. Appeals requiring
extensive research and documentation may require a longer period of time
for responses. The Jail Warden may extend response time periods for a

10

11
(ECF No. 37-4).
In his one-page Response, Plaintiff states he “contest” Al Landreth’s Affidavit and he
asserts he was placed in solitary confinement after the assault and denied any access to the
grievance procedure which forced him to file this case instead of a grievance. 	(ECF No. 39).
Plaintiff’s response is not sworn under penalty of perjury or notarized. 	Id.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the record "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); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
"Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with
the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a
genuine issue of material fact exists.” 	Nat’l Bank of Comm. v. Dow Chem. Co., 165 F.3d 602,
607 (8th Cir. 1999).
The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
doubt as to the material facts." 	Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. 	"They must show there is sufficient
evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor." 	Nat’l Bank, 165 F.3d at 607. 	"A case founded
on speculation or suspicion is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment." 	Id. at 610.
“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the
record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts
for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” 	Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380
(2007).
Under § 1983, a defendant may be sued in either his personal capacity, or in his official
capacity, or claims may be stated against a defendant in both his personal and his official
capacities. 	The type of conduct that is actionable and the type of defense available depend on
whether the claim is asserted against a defendant in his official or individual capacity. 	See
Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). 	“Claims against
individuals in their official capacities are equivalent to claims against the entity for which they
work; they require proof that a policy or custom of the entity violated the plaintiff’s rights, and the
only type of immunity available is one belonging to the entity itself.” 	Id. 	Personal capacity
claims “are those which allege personal liability for individual actions by officials in the course of
their duties; these claims do not require proof of any policy and qualified immunity may be raised
as a defense” to these individual capacity claims. 	Id. 	To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law, and that the actor violated a
right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution. 	West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);
Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.1999).
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
III. 	DISCUSSION
The PLRA mandates exhaustion of available administrative remedies before an inmate files
suit. 	Section 1997e(a) of the PLRA provides: “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under Section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, 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) (held unconstitutional on other grounds). 	Exhaustion is
mandatory. 	Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002). 	In Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199
(2007), the Supreme Court explained that “to properly exhaust administrative remedies prisoners
must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural
rules.” 	Id. at 218 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 	The Jones Court stated that
the “level of detail necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary
from system to system and claim to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA,
that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” 	Id. 	Finally, in the Eighth Circuit, exhaustion
is an affirmative defense, and the defendant has the burden of pleading and proving the failure to
exhaust. 	See Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir.2005).
Miller 	County 	Defendants 	have 	met 	this 	burden 	in 	their 	Motion 	and 	supporting
documentation. 	The parties here do not dispute the MCDC has a grievance procedure, nor that
the MCDC Grievance Procedure requires Plaintiff to first file a Complaint through the KIOSK,
receive a response, and then, if unsatisfied, file a written Grievance on a Request for
Administrative Remedy Form, jail form 09.01A. 	(ECF No. 37-4). 	Plaintiff does not allege he
filed any Complaint or Grievances relating to his claims in compliance with the MCDC Grievance
Procedure. 	Instead, Plaintiff alleges the MCDC Grievance Procedure was unavailable to him due
to his housing in solitary confinement. 	(ECF No. 39).
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
Plaintiff is correct that he is only required to exhaust those administrative remedies which
are “available” to him. 	See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 639 (2016). 	In Ross, the Supreme Court
enumerated three instances where plaintiffs are excused from exhaustion of administrative
remedies as “unavailable” pursuant to the PLRA: (1) when the procedure operates as a “dead end”
because the officers are unable or unwilling to provide relief to the inmate; (2) the grievance
procedure is so opaque as to become “incapable of use;” and (3) when prison officials prevent a
prisoner from utilizing the procedure through “machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.”
Id. at 643-44. 	Plaintiff is clearly relying on the third prong—claiming he was prevented from
utilizing the MCDC Grievance Procedure. 	(ECF No. 39).
Plaintiff, however, has failed to show he is entitled to any exception to exhaustion under
the PLRA. 	First, Plaintiff has failed to submit any summary judgment evidence in support of his
Response. 	Plaintiff’s Response contains the allegation that he was denied access due to his
solitary confinement, however, this document is not sworn under penalty of perjury and does not
attest to the truth or correctness of the statements within. 	(ECF No. 39). 	The Court cannot use
Plaintiff’s unsworn arguments to create issue of fact on summary judgment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs Motions for Summary Judgment. 	While Rule
56 does not require a formal affidavit to submit testimony as evidence, any unsworn declarations
or statements submitted at summary judgment must still satisfy statutory requirements. 	See Banks
v. John Deere & Co., 829 F.3d 661, 668 (8th Cir. 2016). 	Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, an
unsworn declaration or statement must be written, signed, dated, and certified as true and correct
“under penalty of perjury.” 	The Eighth Circuit, while allowing pro se pleadings to be construed
liberally, does not allow a free pass on procedural requirements in this instance. 	See, e.g., Risdal
v. Nixon, 589 Fed.Appx.801, 803 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding the district court erred in considering
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
the plaintiff's unsworn statements in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment).
Additionally, Plaintiff was advised of these rules and requirements prior to filing his
Response. 	Specifically, the Court explained in its Order directing Plaintiff respond to the Miller
County Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment:
To oppose a Motion for Summary Judgment you may not simply rely on the allegations in
your Complaint. 	You must submit evidence, such as records, affidavits, or other
documents, opposing the facts asserted by the defendants and setting out specific facts to
support you exhausted your claims prior to filing this lawsuit.
Any written statements must in the form of affidavits. 	An affidavit is a sworn statement
based on personal knowledge setting forth facts relevant to your claims. 	An affidavit must
be either: (a) sworn and subscribed to by a notary public of (b) signed under penalty of
perjury. 	You may submit your own affidavit and the affidavit of others.
(ECF No. 38). 	Accordingly, the Court is unable to consider Plaintiff's factual assertions made in
his unsworn Response to create an issue of fact here.
Additionally, the Court is not required to provide Plaintiff deference when his version of
the facts is blatantly contradicted by evidence on the record. 	See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
380 (2007). 	The Miller County Defendants produced three separate Complaints/Requests
Plaintiff filed between the time of his assault and the filing of this lawsuit. 	Clearly evidencing
Plaintiff’s access to the KIOSK system and the Grievance Procedure prior to his filing of this case.
(ECF No. 37-3, pp. 8-10).
Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
regarding all claims made against the Miller County Defendants in his Complaint and recommends
all such claims be dismissed.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended the Miller County Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 35) be GRANTED and all of Plaintiff’s claims asserted against the Miller
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
County Defendants be dismissed. 	Further, it is recommended that Defendants Walker, Easley,
Hines, and Moore be dismissed from this case.0F
1 Because this is Plaintiff’s second case alleging
the same causes of action and has the exact same exhaustion failures as the previous complaint,
the Court recommends DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE in this instance.
This leaves for further litigation Plaintiff’s claims asserted against the medical Defendants,
Lisa Davidson and Steven King.
REFERRAL STATUS: This case should remain referred.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	The failure to file
timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties
are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by
the district court.
DATED this 27th day of February 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 The Court notes it previously made a similar recommendation in Civil No. 4:22-cv-04040 where
Plaintiff sued the same Defendants and alleged almost identical claims regarding the March 24,
2022 assault. The prior complaint was dismissed without prejudice on January 19, 2024. As it does
here, the Court found the record clearly established Plaintiff failed to file any Grievances regarding
his claims, thus he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and his claims were dismissed
without prejudice.
Case 4:24-cv-04021-JTS Document 53 Filed 02/27/25 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>