eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-06

Nelson v. Sollie ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • 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