Tennille v. Quintana, 083111 FED3, 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|
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.
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...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP