Bennett v. James

Second Circuit

Bennett v. James

441 F. App'x 816

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

Docket10-3536-pr

StatusUnpublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 441 F. App'x 816 (Bennett v. James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bennett v. James, 441 F. App'x 816 (2d Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

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.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F. App'x 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-james-ca2-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack