IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40488
Conference Calendar
PERRY WAYNE FREEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOY TRANT, In her Individual and Official Capacity as
Librarian of the Stiles Unit; TIMOTHY VANBIBBER, In his
Individual Capacity as Unit Grievance Investigator; REGINALD
BROWN, In his Individual Capacity as Technician in Charge;
CHARLES KEETON, Warden in charge of Unit Operations;
PITTMAN, Lieutenant,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:00-CV-20
--------------------
August 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Perry Wayne Freeman, Texas prisoner # 752397, appeals the
district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-40488
-2-
remedies.
Freeman argues that he filed Step-1 and Step-2 grievances
regarding a threat by another inmate. Freeman presented nothing
in the district court showing that he exhausted the grievance
procedure regarding this inmate threat. Instead, he asserted in
the district court that he was coerced into signing a statement
that his complaint about the inmate threat was moot. By
asserting in district court that he dropped his grievance after
Step-1 (albeit as a result of coercion), Freeman admitted that he
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing
this action.
Freeman asserts for the first time on appeal that he did not
sign a statement that his grievance was moot, that he filed a
Step-2 grievance on November 26, 1999, and that his Step-2
grievance was denied on December 20, 1999. His assertions are
not credible. Freeman filed his objections to the magistrate
judge’s report (in which he stated that he was coerced into
abandoning his grievance) in March 2001. If true, he surely knew
then that he had filed a Step-2 and that it had been dismissed on
December 20, 1999, as he now asserts. There is nothing in the
record supporting any of these assertions.
Freeman does not argue that he exhausted administrative
remedies regarding any other allegation raised in his complaint
or that the district court erred in dismissing any other
allegation for failure to exhaust, and thus has abandoned on
No. 01-40488
-3-
appeal any issue regarding the dismissal of these other
allegations. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Freeman has not made a credible showing that he complied
with the exhaustion requirement before he filed this action as
required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Therefore, the district court
did not err in dismissing his action for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies.
AFFIRMED.