United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge
James Webb (“Mr. Webb”) is a state prisoner
currently confined at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
(“Wabash”). Mr. Webb filed his complaint on
September 12, 2016, alleging that defendants Nurse Mark
Bender, Dr. Neil J. Martin, and Nurse Kimberly A. Hobson were
deliberately indifferent to his broken hand in violation of
the Eighth Amendment. He alleges that Nurse Bender put a cast
on his right broken hand on October 3, 2014, at the direction
of Dr. Martin without his hand being examined by a doctor or
x-rayed, causing the loss of movement of all four fingers on
his right hand and constant pain in that hand.
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking
resolution of the claims against them on the basis that Mr.
Webb failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies.
Mr. Webb opposed the motion for summary judgment and the
reasons explained in this Entry, the defendants' motion
for summary judgment [dkt. 15] must be
judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A “material fact”
is one that “might affect the outcome of the
suit.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine only if a
reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party.
Id. If no reasonable jury could find for the
non-moving party, then there is no “genuine”
dispute. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and all reasonable inferences are drawn in
the non-movant's favor. Ault v. Speicher, 634
F.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir. 2011).
applicable substantive law will dictate which facts are
material.” National Soffit & Escutcheons, Inc.,
v. Superior Systems, Inc., 98 F.3d 262, 265 (7th Cir.
1996) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The
substantive law applicable to the motion for summary judgment
is the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA'”), which requires that a prisoner
exhaust his available administrative remedies before bringing
a suit concerning prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a); see Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25
(2002). “[T]he PLRA's exhaustion requirement
applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they
involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and
whether they allege excessive force or some other
wrong.” Id. at 532 (citation omitted).
exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines
and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative
system can function effectively without imposing some orderly
structure on the course of its proceedings.”
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006) (footnote
omitted); see also Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 655
(7th Cir. 2004) (“In order to properly exhaust, a
prisoner must submit inmate complaints and appeals ‘in
the place, and at the time, the prison's administrative
rules require.'”) (quoting Pozo v.
McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002)).
“In order to exhaust administrative remedies, a
prisoner must take all steps prescribed by the prison's
grievance system.” Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d
395, 397 (7th Cir. 2004).
basis of the pleadings and the expanded record, and
specifically on the portions of that record which comply with
the requirements of Rule 56(c), the following facts,
construed in the manner most favorable to Mr. Webb as the
non-movant, are undisputed for purposes of the motion for
times relevant to his claims in this suit, Mr. Webb was
incarcerated at Wabash. The current version of the Indiana
Department of Correction (“IDOC”) Grievance
Process went into effect April 5, 2015. The prior version
went into effect January 1, 2010. Dkt. 17-1, dkt. 17-2, dkt.
17-3. Mr. Webb was injured on October 3, 2014, while the
prior version was in effect. His informal grievance was not
submitted until 2015, when the current version became
purpose of the Offender Grievance Process is to provide
administrative means by which inmates may resolve concerns
and complaints related to their conditions of confinement.
All offenders are made aware of the Offender Grievance
Process during orientation and are provided a copy of the