This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuitFeb 14, 2007
216 Fed. Appx. 605 (8th Cir. 2007)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Trevino v. Woodbury Cnty. Jail

    …Dismissal without prejudice is mandatory under such circumstances. See Porter v. Sturm, 781 F.3d 448, 452…

  • Skinner v. Dormire

    …See Sergent v. Norris, 330 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (finding no evidence in record…

lock 9 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 05-4119.

Submitted: February 7, 2007.

Filed: February 14, 2007.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Ricky L. Maddix, Mineral Point, MO, pro se.

John Joseph Treu, Jefferson City, MO, Martin J. Buckley, Buckley Buckley, Joseph T. McGuire, Attorney General's Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellees.

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.



Missouri inmate Ricky L. Maddix appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court dismissed the suit because, among other reasons, it agreed with defendants' contentions that Maddix failed to exhaust the myriad claims raised in his complaint. Upon de novo review, see Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (this court reviews de novo application of Prison Litigation Reform Act, and for clear error district court's findings of fact), we agree with the district court that Maddix failed to exhaust administratively any of the claims he raised in the instant lawsuit before he filed his complaint, see Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (inmate must exhaust before filing suit, or dismissal is mandatory). Although Maddix contends that defendants thwarted his attempts to exhaust these claims, the record does not support his contention. See Sergent v. Norris, 330 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (finding no evidence in record that inmate was prevented from effectively utilizing grievance procedures).

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. However, we modify the dismissal to clarify that it is without prejudice. See Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 1998).