THOMAS
v.
MILLER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies as required by the PLRA.
Plaintiff filed a grievance that was returned without action and with direction to re-file. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal for failure to …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exhaustion Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 53, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 54. Upon review, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff has not properly exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the claims now before this Court. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006) (holding “that the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion”). This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Plaintiff’s grievance filed directly with the Secretary does not demonstrate that he exhausted his administrative remedies. This grievance did not give Plaintiff a final determination on the merits, and Plaintiff was advised that he could submit his grievance at the appropriate level if he was within the allowable time frames for doing so. Even though his complaint identified in the grievance was referred to the Inspector General for further review, the return of his grievance without action and with further direction to re-file at the appropriate level indicates that this grievance
was not “approved,” such that it exhausted his administrative remedies. See, e.g., Lucky v. May, Case No. 5:14cv3315-MW/GRJ, 2016 WL 1128426, at *11 n.6 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2016) (discussing Hope v. Walker, Case No.: 5:13cv362-WS/CJK,
2015 WL 5190435)). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: The report and recommendation, ECF No. 53, is accepted and adopted, over
the Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. Defendant’s motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 37, is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e).” The Clerk shall close the file. SO ORDERED on September 7, 2025. s/Mark E. Walker United States District Judge