Tyler Klingensmith v. "Jane" Taylor, No. 22-1821 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Loken, Benton, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's section 1983 complaint is affirmed, as plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to establish a retaliation claim against one of the defendants.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1821 ___________________________ Tyler Klingensmith lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Internal Parole Off. “Jane” Taylor, Parole Officer; Dawn B. Vandiver, Parole Board Secretary; Dr. Sells, Unit Psychologist, Ouachita River Correctional Unit (ORCU); Donna Dycus, ORCU, Unit Coordinator; Clayton Deboer, ORCU, Mental Health Case Manager; Mrs. Hamer, ORCU, Mental Health Supervisor; Officer R. Bleadsoe, ORCU; Rory Griffin, Director of Health and Correctional Services; Warden G. Earl, ORCU; Parole Officer West; Jennings, also known as Jenkins; Mrs. Fuller; Major Christopher, ORCU/ADC; Mrs. Hossman; Lt. Delaney, ADC Security/ORCU; Assist Warden Ball, ORCU; Dexter Payne, ADC Director; Mark Jordan, Bentonville PD Detective; Lt. Hunter, ADC Security/ORCU; Cummings; Mendoza; Whitley lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: January 31, 2023 Filed: February 7, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Tyler Klingensmith appeals following the district court’s1 grant of defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Klingensmith alleged violations of his constitutional rights stemming from a period of confinement within the Arkansas Division of Correction. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, see De Rossitte v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, 22 F.4th 796, 802 (8th Cir. 2022) (de novo review of summary judgment rulings); Ballard v. Heineman, 548 F.3d 1132, 1136 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion review of rulings related to adequacy of discovery), we conclude that defendants were entitled to summary judgment upon demonstrating that Klingensmith failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), see Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 2005), and that Klingensmith failed to establish a retaliation claim against defendant Clayton Deboer, see De Rossitte, 22 F.4th at 804. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed for the reasons provided in the district court’s rulings. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -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.
