Arthur Battle v. Hilton Hall, No. 07-11466 (11th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 07-11466 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 05-00433-CV-WDO-5 ARTHUR BATTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HILTON HALL, Warden of Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, SAMUEL LACY, Deputy Warden at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, CHARLIE HARPER, Unit Manager at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, LT. BURSE, Lieutenant at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, MR. HAGAN, Sergeant at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, JOHN-1 DOE, at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, JOHN-2 DOE, at Macon State Prison, in his individual capacity, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia _________________________ (September 5, 2007) Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Arthur Battle appeals the district court s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Battle alleged that he was beaten by Georgia prison guards while incarcerated at Macon State Prison. We review the district court s dismissal for failure to exhaust a claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e) de novo. Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207 (11th Cir. 2000). Battle did not exhaust his claims by pursuing all administrative remedies before 2 filing his lawsuit as required by PLRA. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). He only made an informal grievance and did not pursue the avenues available for an appeal under the Georgia prison procedures. The exhaustion requirement is mandatory, and therefore Battle s suit was properly dismissed by the district court. See Alexander v. Hawk, 159 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 1998). AFFIRMED. 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.
