Opinion
No. 20-3000
03-15-2021
Deverick Scott Plaintiff - Appellant v. James Gibson, Warden, Varner Unit (Originally named as Gibson); Virginia Allen, Mailroom Supervisor, Varner Supermax Unit (originally named as Allen); Trent Smith, Officer, Varner Supermax Unit; John Pollett, Chaplain, Varner Supermax Unit (originally named as Polate); Seam Treas, Chaplain, Varner Supermax Unit (originally named as Trease); Dexter McDonnell, Chaplain, Varner Supermax Unit (originally named as McDonnell); Does, Publication Review Committee Members, Varner Unit; Briana Boatner, (originally named as Boatner and Bolden) Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff [Unpublished] Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Deverick Scott appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Initially, we find that Scott's claims arising from the denial of religious texts were subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See King v. Iowa Dep't of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo dismissal for failure to exhaust); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (dismissal is mandatory if exhaustion is not complete at time of filing); see also Townsend v. Murphy, 898 F.3d 780, 784 (8th Cir. 2018) (boundaries of proper exhaustion are determined by prison's specified administrative requirements).
The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkanas. --------
Viewing the record in a light most favorable to Scott, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, see Brewington v. Keener, 902 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 2018) (de novo review), we agree with the district court that the record did not establish that the practice of Scott's religion was substantially burdened under RLUIPA or the First Amendment by the one-time denial of a Ramadan meal or by the subsequent one-time denial of an Eid feast meal. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.