Watson v. Delaware Correctional Center, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAVID L. WATSON, Plaintiff BelowAppellant, v. DELAWARE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ROBERT SNYDER, LAWRENCE MCGUIGAN, CHARLES S. CUNNINGHAM, JOSEPH BELANGER, DELAWARE MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and GEORGIA L. PERDUE, Defendants BelowAppellees. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 313, 2002 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 02C-03-127 Submitted: November 15, 2002 Decided: December 12, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 12th day of December 2002, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and certain appellees motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiff-appellant, David L. Watson, filed this appeal from the Superior Court s order dismissing his complaint following a bench trial. Watson is incarcerated at the Delaware Correctional Center. He filed a complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials were subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment by not permitting him to take his arthritis medication in the manner prescribed by his doctor. After hearing evidence and considering legal memoranda submitted by the parties, the Superior Court dismissed Watson s complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) because Watson had failed first to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him.1 The Superior Court found, as a matter of fact, that Watson had failed to pursue the prison grievance procedures that were available to him. The State defendants have filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court s judgment. (2) Having carefully considered the parties= respective positions, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated May 22, 2002. The Superior Court s holding that Watson was required to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him before filing a lawsuit is a matter of settled law.2 1 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), provides: No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. 2 Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002) (holding that the PLRA s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. ) 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: _/s/ Myron T. Steele__________________ Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
