Filed: Dec. 20, 2011
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2011
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on September 16, 2010, is AFFIRMED. Appellant Donald Bennett, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We r
Summary: SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on September 16, 2010, is AFFIRMED. Appellant Donald Bennett, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We re..
More
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on September 16, 2010, is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Donald Bennett, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment, with the view that "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). Further, we review de novo a district court's ruling on whether a plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F.3d 649, 653 (2d Cir. 2004).
Upon such review, we conclude that Bennett's appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge in his well-reasoned decision. See Bennett v. James, 737 F.Supp.2d 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). We have considered all of Bennett's arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
