Walter J.d. Moffett v. Michael Dittman

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,
v.
MICHAEL DITTMAN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 18-cv-656-wmc
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. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 23-2985 Page 2
O R D E R
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,

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --