Michael Boyd v. Doe ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •               United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-2334
    ___________________________
    Michael Lavern Boyd
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Greg Rechcigl, et al.
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena
    ____________
    Submitted: January 9, 2020
    Filed: January 16, 2020
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Arkansas inmate Michael Boyd appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary
    judgment dismissing his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he alleged that
    various Arkansas Department of Corrections employees were deliberately indifferent
    to his medical needs, for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies under the
    Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). In a prior appeal, we reversed the grant of
    summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. See Boyd v. Doe, 746 Fed.
    Appx. 599 (8th Cir. 2018). On remand, the magistrate judge conducted an
    evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Lee v.
    Willey, 
    789 F.3d 673
    , 677 (6th Cir. 2015) (district court may resolve factual disputes
    relevant to PLRA exhaustion in evidentiary hearing without jury trial). We review
    the district court’s application of the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement de novo and its
    findings of fact for clear error, see Nerness v. Johnson, 
    401 F.3d 874
    , 876 (8th Cir.
    2005) (per curiam), and findings based on credibility determinations are entitled to
    great deference, see Story v. Norwood, 
    659 F.3d 680
    , 684-85 (8th Cir. 2011). Having
    carefully reviewed the record and the arguments on appeal, we conclude that
    summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons stated by the district court.
    See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
    Boyd’s pending motions to supplement the record are denied, appellees’
    motion to strike is denied as moot, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J.
    Thomas Ray, United State Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-2334

Filed Date: 1/16/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/16/2020