Lawrence Edwards v. Chuck Dwyer

Eighth Circuit

Lawrence Edwards v. Chuck Dwyer

366 F. App'x 690

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 2010

Docket08-3839

StatusUnpublished

This text of 366 F. App'x 690 (Lawrence Edwards v. Chuck Dwyer) 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

Lawrence Edwards v. Chuck Dwyer, 366 F. App'x 690 (8th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Lawrence Martin Edwards appeals following the district court’s 1 entry of final judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The only issue Edwards raises in his appeal brief is whether summary judgment was properly granted to defendants Chuck Dwyer and Tori Green. See Fair v. Norris, 480 F.3d 865, 869 (8th Cir.2007) (waiver of claims on appeal). Having conducted de novo review, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Sens., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir.2008), we agree with the district court that the record showed Edwards had not administratively exhausted his claims against Green and Dwyer, and thus that dismissal was required. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 219-20, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court or considered); see also Moody v. St. Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir.1994) (in seeking to defeat summary judgment, party must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence permitting finding in his favor based on more than conjecture or speculation). Accordingly we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, although we modify the dismissal of the claims against Green and Dwyer to be without prejudice, see Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir.1998). We also deny Edwards’s pending motions.

1

. The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Lawrence Martin Edwards appeals following the district court’s 1 entry of final judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The only issue Edwards raises in his appeal brief is whether summary judgment was properly granted to defendants Chuck Dwyer and Tori Green. See Fair v. Norris, 480 F.3d 865, 869 (8th Cir.2007) (waiver of claims on appeal). Having conducted de novo review, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Sens., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir.2008), we agree with the district court that the record showed Edwards had not administratively exhausted his claims against Green and Dwyer, and thus that dismissal was required. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 219-20, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court or considered); see also Moody v. St. Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir.1994) (in seeking to defeat summary judgment, party must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence permitting finding in his favor based on more than conjecture or speculation). Accordingly we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, although we modify the dismissal of the claims against Green and Dwyer to be without prejudice, see Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir.1998). We also deny Edwards’s pending motions.

1

. The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 F. App'x 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-edwards-v-chuck-dwyer-ca8-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack