Jesse McComb v. Robert Weinman

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 15, 2025*
Decided April 21, 2025
Before
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1419
JESSE MCCOMB,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT WEINMAN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 2:23-cv-00363-LA
Lynn Adelman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jesse McComb, a prisoner at Wisconsin’s Waupun Correctional Institution, sued
numerous prison officials for allegedly concealing and failing to treat his medical needs,
in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district
court determined that McComb did not exhaust his available administrative remedies
* 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. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 24-1419 Page 2
before filing his complaint, and it therefore entered summary judgment for the
defendants. Because McComb failed to use the administrative process to notify prison
officials of shortcomings in his medical treatment, we affirm.
McComb has pancreatitis, which causes severe abdominal pain. In June 2021,
McComb received abdominal surgery to remove his gall bladder and was transferred to
Waupun, where, according to his complaint, he was housed in a filthy cell. For the next
six months, he experienced weight loss, headaches, loss of energy, abdominal pain, and
severe diarrhea.
In January 2022, McComb filed a grievance in which he complained that he had
been suffering from constant abdominal and lower back pain “for weeks” and that
prison officials refused to prescribe him medication to treat the pain. The grievance also
reported that, in November 2021, prison officials had quarantined him for 14 days and
prescribed him an anti-fungal medication without an explanation. McComb further
stated in his grievance that, after he was released from quarantine, his psychiatrist told
him that his segregation had stemmed from his “deadly stomach virus,” namely “C-
Diff” (clostridioides difficile, a serious and highly contagious bacterial infection). He wrote
in his grievance that the staff’s “current disregard” of his pain was “a pattern of
continued deception and disregard.”
A Waupun grievance examiner investigated and recommended dismissing
McComb’s grievance on the merits. The examiner found that, shortly after McComb
filed the grievance, the health services staff examined him for his abdominal pain,
prescribed him medication, and referred him for additional treatment. According to the
examiner, this constituted proper treatment. The reviewing authority accepted the
recommendation, and on appeal, the Office of the Secretary of the Department of
Corrections upheld the resolution.
McComb then filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court screened
McComb’s operative complaint and construed it to allege three instances of deliberate
indifference by Waupun officials: (1) failing to treat his pancreatitis after he was
transferred to the prison in June 2021; (2) housing him in a filthy cell after his surgery,
causing him to contract the C-Diff infection in November 2021; and (3) mishandling the
diagnosis of his C-Diff infection and failing to treat the symptoms appropriately.
McComb does not contest this determination.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that McComb failed to
exhaust his available administrative remedies. The district court agreed. Because

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 24-1419 Page 3
McComb did not dispute the defendants’ proposed findings of fact with citations to the
record, the court applied Local Rule 56(b)(4) and accepted their version of the facts, to
the extent it was supported by admissible evidence. The court then noted that McComb
never mentioned pancreatitis or a dirty cell in a grievance at Waupun, so prison officials
could not have been on notice of the problems related to his first two theories of
deliberate indifference. The court also accepted the defendants’ argument that no
grievance had highlighted the inadequate handling of McComb’s C-Diff diagnosis. The
relevant grievance focused on one instance of abdominal pain, not any “pattern” of
deception or indifference regarding his medical care. Therefore, the court granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, McComb first contends that the district court erred when it deemed
the defendants’ facts undisputed under the local rules. We review the court’s decision
to strictly enforce local rules for an abuse of discretion, see McCurry v. Kenco Logistics
Servs., LLC, 942 F.3d 783, 787 n.2 (7th Cir. 2019), and we see no error here. As the court
explained, if the nonmovant does not provide supporting evidence for a factual dispute,
the court will accept as true the factual assertions that the moving party has properly
supported. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 56(e)(2); E.D. W ISC. C IV. R. 56(b)(2)(B), (b)(4). Here,
McComb expressed disagreement with only three of the defendants’ proposed facts and
did not cite any evidence supporting his position or demonstrate that the defendants’
evidence failed to support the assertions. The court thus reasonably enforced the local
rules in deeming the proposed facts admitted.
McComb also challenges the ruling that he failed to exhaust his available
administrative remedies, a decision we review de novo. See Jackson v. Esser, 105 F.4th
948, 956 (7th Cir. 2024). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a complaint about prison conditions
may not proceed unless there is “proper” exhaustion of administrative remedies,
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006), which is defined by state law, Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). To exhaust, a prisoner must strictly comply with the state’s
administrative rules about inmate complaints. See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 995
(7th Cir. 2020) (explaining the Wisconsin scheme for exhaustion).
As to McComb’s first two alleged instances of deliberate indifference, we agree
with the district court that he did not exhaust his claims that Waupun officials failed to
treat his chronic pancreatitis and housed him in a filthy cell. To properly exhaust his
remedies, McComb was required to “provide[] notice to the prison of ‘the nature of the
wrong for which redress is sought.’” See Jackson, 105 F.4th at 959 (citing Schillinger,
954 F.3d at 995); WIS . ADMIN . C ODE DOC § 310.07(6) (2002) (amended 2018) (“A

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 24-1419 Page 4
complaint must contain sufficient information for the department to investigate and
decide the complaint.”). McComb did not submit a grievance regarding chronic pain
from pancreatitis or the potential danger posed by unsanitary conditions in his cell after
his June 2021 surgery. Thus, he did not provide notice of these issues. See Jackson,
105 F.4th at 959.
McComb’s third claim—regarding the prison officials’ mishandling of his C-Diff
diagnosis and treatment—warrants closer examination. He argues that his January 2022
grievance alerted prison officials to the failure to communicate his C-Diff diagnosis
while he was quarantined in November 2021, and that their concealment caused the
worsening abdominal pain he reported in January 2022.
Although McComb is correct that his grievance addressed the defendants’
alleged concealment of his C-Diff diagnosis, it did not suffice for exhaustion purposes.
In Wisconsin, a grievance must contain a “clearly identified issue.” WIS . A DMIN . C ODE
DOC § 310.07(5) (2002) (amended 2018); see Jackson, 105 F.4th at 960 (affirming the
failure to exhaust finding because the prisoner’s complaint allegations were much
broader than his administrative grievance). McComb stated that the primary issue in his
complaint was the abdominal pain he had been experiencing “for weeks.” Although he
linked that pain to his C-Diff diagnosis and the lack of treatment for the infection, his
main concern was the pain, not the concealment of his C-Diff diagnosis while he was in
quarantine. Indeed, after McComb submitted the grievance, he received medication for
the pain which also lends support that the chief issue of the complaint was his
abdominal pain. Neither the complaint examiner nor the district court interpreted
McComb’s grievance as a complaint about the mishandling of his C-Diff diagnosis and
treatment, nor is the interpretation obvious.
In addition, even if we accepted McComb’s generous interpretation of his
January 2022 grievance, he failed to timely exhaust his C-Diff mishandling claim.
McComb alleges that he was quarantined for 14 days in November 2021 and in the
“days that followed” his release, he learned that he had been treated for the “deadly
stomach virus.” Accordingly, grieving about concealment on January 24, 2022 went
several weeks beyond the 14-day period to file a complaint under Wisconsin law. See
Wis. Admin. Code DOC § 310.07(2). Nor is there any evidence that McComb sought
leave to file a late complaint regarding his C-Diff mishandling claim.
McComb thus did not properly exhaust the remedies available under Wisconsin
law.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --