Walter Moffett v. Michael Dittman, No. 23-2985 (7th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted April 24, 2024* Decided April 24, 2024 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge No. 23-2985 WALTER J.D. MOFFETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. v. No. 18-cv-656-wmc MICHAEL DITTMAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. William M. Conley, Judge. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). * No. 23-2985 Page 2 ORDER Walter Moffett, a state prisoner, appeals the summary judgment rejecting various claims of mistreatment while he was incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin. We affirm. In late 2018, Moffett brought a wide-ranging complaint against prison officials at Columbia. The district court screened the complaint and allowed Moffett to proceed on claims that prison officials in 2016 infringed upon his rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide medical attention, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by placing him in a unit that was not wheelchair accessible. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111–17; 29 U.S.C. § 794. The court, however, dismissed his conditions-of-confinement claim because he had alleged only the usual discomforts associated with prison. The court also dismissed a doctor and a nurse who Moffett did not allege consciously disregarded his illness or injury after a fall. Finally, the court dismissed both a correctional officer who Moffett did not allege ignored his wheelchair needs and an inmate complaint examiner whose adverse decision allegedly had displeased Moffett. The court later entered summary judgment for the remaining defendants (including the warden, eight correctional officers, a unit manager, a health services manager, two social workers, and the director of psychology) on grounds that Moffett did not exhaust administrative remedies because he failed to file a grievance with prison administrators about the alleged unconstitutional conduct. Moffett appeals the district court’s judgment, but his opening brief does not engage with the district court’s reasoning. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). He asserts in his reply brief that he was unable to exhaust administrative remedies because he never received an “inmate complaint form,” did not have access to any forms, and was told by officials that the prison was “out” of forms, but he waived those arguments by failing to include them in his opening brief. See Tuduj v. Newbold, 958 F.3d 576, 579 (7th Cir. 2020). Moffett does challenge the district court’s screening order, arguing that no one should have been dismissed at the screening stage because “all the defendants mentioned in [the complaint] were directly or indirectly involved in abuse.” But the dismissed claim worked no prejudice because the record establishes that Moffett did not exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to his constitutional claims. Inmates must comply strictly with the prison’s rules for filing grievances and appeals, No. 23-2985 Page 3 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007); Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024–25 (7th Cir. 2002), and Moffett filed only three grievances in 2016, none of which identified issues with wheelchair accessibility or medical care other than a co-pay problem. AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
