McCray v. Carter

Background

Daeshawn McCray sued Warden Carter, Warden Guerra, Captain Horton, and Captain John Doe. He alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, asserting that the defendants deprived him of toiletries, food, water, and access to working restroom facilities.

Warden Carter, Warden Guerra, and Captain Horton moved to dismiss all claims against them. A magistrate judge recommended granting that motion because McCray had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, meaning he had not completed the required administrative grievance process before bringing the claims.

Court’s Analysis

The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. Because no party objected, the court used clear-error review, which asks whether an obvious mistake appears on the face of the record. The court found no such error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review, as the Report had warned.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss all of McCray’s claims against Warden Carter, Warden Guerra, and Captain Horton. The opinion does not add a prejudice designation to that ruling.

The court separately noted that Captain John Doe had not been served. Rather than dismissing those claims immediately, it ordered McCray to explain why he had not served John Doe within 90 days or, if service had occurred, to state when and how it was made. The court stated that if it received no written communication by November 3, 2022, showing good cause for the delay, it would dismiss the claims against John Doe without prejudice and direct the Clerk to close the case.