Lawrence Edwards v. Chuck Dwyer, et al, No. 08-3839 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. District court did not err in finding that plaintiff had not administratively exhausted his claims against defendants Green and Dwyer.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3839 ___________ Lawrence Martin Edwards, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Chuck Dwyer, Superintendent; * Tori Green, Correctional Officer, * SECC; Tamara Cobbs, Individually * and in her official capacity Southeast * Correctional Center; C. Dowdy, * Individually and in her official capacity * Southeast Correctional Center; * Investigator Unknown Jules, * Individually and in his official * capacity Southeast Correctional * Center; Dan Martinez, Individually * and in his official capacity Southeast * Correctional Center; Missouri * Department of Corrections; Laura * Vance, Individually and in her * official capacity Southeast * Correctional Center; John * Williams, Individually and in his * official capacity Southeast * Correctional Center, * * Appellees. * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. [UNPUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: February 23, 2010 Filed: March 1, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Inmate Lawrence Martin Edwards appeals following the district court s1 entry of final judgment in his 42 U.S.C. ยง 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. Servs., 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 (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. -2-
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.
