Lawrence Colon v. T. Frontino ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • CLD-282                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 12-2824
    ___________
    LAWRENCE COLON,
    Appellant
    v.
    LT. T. FRONTINO; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil No. 12-cv-00834)
    District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
    ____________________________________
    Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)
    or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    September 13, 2012
    Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: October 17, 2012)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________
    PER CURIAM
    Pro se Appellant Lawrence Colon, a federal inmate, appeals the District Court’s
    order dismissing his civil rights suit seeking damages and injunctive relief under Bivens
    v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971).
    For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm.
    In his Bivens action, Colon alleged that Appellee Frontino, an official at the
    United States Penitentiary-Allenwood, assaulted him in violation of his Eighth
    Amendment rights. The Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation indicating
    that the action should be dismissed because Colon had not exhausted his administrative
    remedies. In an order entered June 11, 2012, the District Court adopted the report and
    recommendation, and dismissed the action without prejudice. Colon timely appealed.
    We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint
    for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Jenkins v. Morton, 
    148 F.3d 257
    , 259
    (3d Cir. 1998). We may summarily affirm the decision of the District Court if no
    substantial question is presented on appeal. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
    The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) prohibits an inmate from bringing a
    civil rights suit alleging specific acts of unconstitutional conduct by prison officials “until
    such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The
    PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to federal prisoners, like Colon, seeking relief
    through a Bivens action. Nyhius v. Reno, 
    204 F.3d 65
    , 69 (3d Cir. 2000). Colon
    conceded in his complaint that, although he had commenced the inmate grievance
    process, it had not yet been completed. Therefore, the District Court properly dismissed
    the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
    Accordingly, because we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial
    question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-2824

Judges: Rendell, Hardiman, Cowen

Filed Date: 10/17/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024