Maxwell v. Talley

Eighth Circuit

Maxwell v. Talley

419 F. App'x 697

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 2011

DocketNo. 10-3096

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 419 F. App'x 697 (Maxwell v. Talley) 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

Maxwell v. Talley, 419 F. App'x 697 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Inmates Robert Maxwell and Princess Smith appeal the district court’s¹ dismissal [700]*700of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit following an evidentiary hearing. Upon careful review of the record and of appellants’ arguments, see Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n. 1 (8th Cir.1993) (reviewing factual findings for clear error, and legal conclusions de novo), we find no basis for reversal. Because it would have been impossible for Ms. Smith to exhaust her claim against defendant Deputy Willie Owens before filing suit — as the incident with Mr. Owens had yet to occur-dismissal of this claim on exhaustion grounds was mandatory. See Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir.2003). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, but we amend the dismissal of Ms. Smith’s claim against Mr. Owens to be without prejudice.

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

PER CURIAM.

Inmates Robert Maxwell and Princess Smith appeal the district court’s¹ dismissal [700]*700of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit following an evidentiary hearing. Upon careful review of the record and of appellants’ arguments, see Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n. 1 (8th Cir.1993) (reviewing factual findings for clear error, and legal conclusions de novo), we find no basis for reversal. Because it would have been impossible for Ms. Smith to exhaust her claim against defendant Deputy Willie Owens before filing suit — as the incident with Mr. Owens had yet to occur-dismissal of this claim on exhaustion grounds was mandatory. See Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir.2003). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, but we amend the dismissal of Ms. Smith’s claim against Mr. Owens to be without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 F. App'x 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-talley-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack