Moore v. St Tammany Prsh Jail, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-30244
Summary Calendar
JERRY MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ST. TAMMANY PARISH JAIL; MARLIN PEACHEY, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees,
------------------------
JERRY MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RODNEY JACK STRAIN, JR., Sheriff; ST. TAMMANY
PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 03-CV-709-J
USDC No. 03-CV-2779-J
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry Moore, St. Tammany Parish pretrial detainee #076945,
appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment and
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, which challenged the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-30244
-2-
conditions of his confinement. We review a district court’s
award of summary judgment de novo. Banks v. East Baton Rouge
Parish Sch. Bd., 320 F.3d 570, 575 (5th Cir. 2003).
Moore does not challenge the dismissal with prejudice of his
claims against the St. Tammany Parish Jail and the St. Tammany
Parish Sheriff’s Office or the dismissal with prejudice of his
claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly,
those claims have been abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Exhaustion is required for all inmate suits about prison
life. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,
524-32 (2002). The district court dismissed without prejudice
Moore’s claims against Warden Peachey in his official capacity
and against Sheriff Jack Strain because Moore had failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies.
The competent summary judgment evidence established that
Moore did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Although
Moore submits on appeal a third step grievance he purportedly
sent to the sheriff, this evidence was not submitted to the
district court and may not be considered. See Theriot v. Parish
of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --