Anthony Hayes v. Randy Watson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 20, 2023
Docket22-2273
StatusUnpublished

This text of Anthony Hayes v. Randy Watson (Anthony Hayes v. Randy Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anthony Hayes v. Randy Watson, (8th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-2273 ___________________________

Anthony Hayes

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Randy Watson, Warden, Arkansas Department of Correction; Claudia Harris, Deputy Warden, Arkansas Department of Correction; Mitchell Johnson, Jr., Captain, Arkansas Department of Correction; Raymond Naylor, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator, Arkansas Department of Correction; Michael M. Lowe, Major, Arkansas Department of Correction; Itena Jackson, Classification Officer, Arkansas Department of Correction

Defendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Filed: January 20, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Anthony Hayes, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), appeals following the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

This court concludes that the district court properly granted summary judgment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party). Hayes failed to comply with the ADC’s grievance procedure by filing an untimely initial grievance. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006) (prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with prison’s applicable procedural rules, including deadlines). He also did not show that his administrative remedies were unavailable. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643-44 (2016). To the extent Hayes raises additional arguments on appeal, they present no basis for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Woodford v. Ngo
548 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Robert Aaron Peterson v. Officer Michael Kopp
754 F.3d 594 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
Ross v. Blake
578 U.S. 632 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Anthony Hayes v. Randy Watson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-hayes-v-randy-watson-ca8-2023.