Case: 20-60327 Document: 00516280438 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 14, 2022
No. 20-60327
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Dean C. Boyd,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
M.D. Edward Thomas Cullom, III;
Captain Denise Bone,
Mississippi Department of Corrections Employee State of Mississippi,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
No. 3:18-CV-123
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Dean Boyd, Mississippi prisoner #167698, appeals the summary judg-
ment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for failure to exhaust available
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60327 Document: 00516280438 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2022
No. 20-60327
administrative remedies and the dismissal of his state-law tort claim. His
motion to reconsider the striking of his reply brief is DENIED.
We review a summary judgment for failure to exhaust de novo and
apply the same standard as the district court. Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260,
266 (5th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Section 1983
complaints challenging prison conditions have been properly exhausted
where the plaintiff “‘complete[d] the administrative review process in accor-
dance with the applicable procedural rules.’” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,
218 (2007) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006)).
Boyd has not shown a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
he exhausted available administrative remedies, given that he conceded that
he did not pursue his grievance through the two-step process before filing his
complaint. See Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785, 788 (5th Cir. 2012). His later
grievances that he purportedly pursued to conclusion do not establish that
the exhaustion requirement was satisfied before filing suit. See id. Moreover,
his motion for judicial review in state court shows efforts to circumvent the
ARP procedures rather than demonstrating exhaustion because inmates must
comply with the institutional grievance procedures. See Jones, 549 U.S.
at 218.
As for the dismissal of his state law tort claim, Boyd merely reiterates
the arguments he presented to the magistrate judge (“MJ”) and does not
challenge the MJ’s determinations that he failed to provide the requisite
notice of intent to sue and failed to allege a claim amounting to an Eighth
Amendment violation. Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construc-
tion, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), arguments must be briefed
to be preserved, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Boyd
2
Case: 20-60327 Document: 00516280438 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2022
No. 20-60327
abandons, by failing to brief, any challenge to the alternative reasons the MJ
gave for the dismissal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
3