From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Giddings v. Smith

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division
Jan 4, 2006
Civil Action No. 1:05cv712 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:05cv712.

January 4, 2006


MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


Plaintiff Robin Giddings, a prisoner confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden J. Smith.

The court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes the objections are without merit. First, plaintiff alleges that exhaustion should not be required in this case because the defendant failed to comply with a mandatory evacuation order. This argument lacks merit because the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner lawsuits concerning prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Plaintiff also contends that he was unable to exhaust administrative remedies because prison officials interfered with his access to the grievance procedure. This argument is not supported by the record because plaintiff has submitted grievances showing that prison officials did process his grievances. Because plaintiff received a final ruling on his grievance after this lawsuit was filed, this case must be dismissed. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

ORDER

Accordingly, plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge's recommendation.


Summaries of

Giddings v. Smith

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division
Jan 4, 2006
Civil Action No. 1:05cv712 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2006)
Case details for

Giddings v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:ROBIN GIDDINGS, v. J. SMITH

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division

Date published: Jan 4, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:05cv712 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2006)

Citing Cases

Thurston v. Miller

, § 2; Blackwell on Tax Titles, 215, 220, 221, 251, 262; Sedgwick on Stat. Constitut. Law, 355.2d. Because he…

Roberts v. Director

See Broussard v. Johnson, 918 F. Supp. 1040, 1043 (E.D. Tex. 1996) If not then satisfied, the offender may…