Tennille v. Quintana, 083111 FED3, 11-2682

Docket Nº:11-2682
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:LAWRENCE KEMP TENNILLE, Appellant v. FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, EX-WARDEN; ROD SMITH, HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR; S.L. NOLAN, ASSOCIATE WARDEN; STEPHEN D. GAGNON, ASSOCIATE WARDEN; DENISE A. HALE, EMPLOYEE SERVICE MANAGER
Judge Panel:Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:August 31, 2011
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

LAWRENCE KEMP TENNILLE, Appellant

v.

FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, EX-WARDEN; ROD SMITH, HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR; S.L. NOLAN, ASSOCIATE WARDEN; STEPHEN D. GAGNON, ASSOCIATE WARDEN; DENISE A. HALE, EMPLOYEE SERVICE MANAGER

No. 11-2682

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

August 31, 2011

         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

          Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 August 18, 2011

         On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-00238) District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin.

          Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

         Lawrence Kemp Tennille, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granting the defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the record, we conclude that the appeal does not present a substantial question. Therefore, we will summarily affirm the District Court's judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

         In September 2009, Tennille filed a complaint, which he later amended, alleging that prison officials at FCI-McKean denied his requests to have prescription eyeglasses mailed to him from the manufacturer after they were purchased by his family at a cost of $250.1 Tennille asserted that the actions of the prison officials constituted a conspiracy to retaliate against him for filing a civil complaint and violated his rights to due process and equal protection. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing that Tennille failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and, in any event, failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who recommended that summary judgment be entered in favor of the defendants based on Tennille's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In particular, the Magistrate Judge concluded that, although Tennille had fully pursued administrative remedies with respect to an allegation that the denial of eyeglasses violated prison policies, he failed to raise due process, equal protection, conspiracy, and retaliation claims in the administrative remedy process.2 Over Tennille's objections, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. After the District Court denied Tennille's motion for reconsideration, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), Tennille appealed.

         We exercise plenary review over an order granting a motion for summary judgment. Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 221 (3d Cir. 1998). A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed if our review reveals that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP