Summary
holding that because DC-AMD 804 allows for extensions of time in certain circumstances, and because plaintiff did not ask for an extension to file an out-of-time grievance, he had not substantially complied with the administrative remedy to exhaust claims
Summary of this case from Talley v. ClarkOpinion
Civil Action No. 06-865.
August 20, 2009
MEMORANDUM ORDER
William Wright's Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was received by the Clerk of Court on June 29, 2006, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Francis X. Caiazza for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. The matter was later assigned to Magistrate Judge Bissoon.
The Magistrate Judge's Report, filed on July 21, 2009, recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all of the remaining Defendants (Doc. 101) be granted. The parties were allowed ten days from the date of service to file objections. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was sent by First Class United States Mail to Plaintiff at his place of incarceration. Objections were due on or before August 7, 2009. No objections have been filed.
After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following ORDER is entered:
AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 2009,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by all remaining Defendants (Doc. 101) is GRANTED. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bissoon (Doc. 114) dated July 21, 2009, is adopted as the opinion of the court.