Opinion
No. 09-5451.
Filed On: September 1, 2010.
BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto; the brief; and the motion for summary reversal, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal denied. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary affirmance. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). A prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies even if he believes seeking administrative relief from the prison would be futile. See Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669, 675 (D.C. Cir. 2008), citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739, 741 n. 6 (2001). Appellant was required to exhaust the D.C. Department of Correction's ("DOC") Inmate Grievance Procedures, specifically Order 4030.1D, which was in effect when the incident about which he complains occurred in December 2003. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83 (2006). Those procedures required that a written grievance be submitted within fifteen (15) days of the incident. Because appellant did not file a timely grievance with the DOC, the district court properly dismissed for failure to exhaust. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.