Danko v. Greene, 2:15-cv-00052

Plaintiff Timothy Danko, a pro se federal inmate, sued prison staff after sustaining a 5-inch laceration to his left forearm at FCI Gilmer that required 13 stitches and caused ongoing pain and functional impairment.
Danko alleges the injury resulted from removal of third-man bunks with torches that left dangerous "burrs." He seeks monetary compensation or a jury trial.
The case was filed July 13, 2015, and reviewed initially under the court's screening authority (28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e)).
The Bureau of Prisons provides a three-level administrative remedy process for inmate complaints (institutional, regional, central office) that must be fully completed before filing suit under the PLRA.
Danko admits he did not pursue any step of the administrative grievance process, asserting grievances would have been frivolous and could not have prevented the incident.
Because the complaint shows failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice and denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Danko exhausted available BOP administrative remedies before filing suit	Danko contends grievances would be frivolous and could not have prevented the injury	BOP procedures were available and exhaustion is required under the PLRA	Court held Danko did not exhaust; dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust
Whether failure to exhaust can be raised sua sponte by the court	Danko implicitly argues exhaustion is unnecessary given futility	Defendants would raise exhaustion as an affirmative defense; exhaustion requirement is mandatory	Court concluded failure to exhaust was apparent on the face of the complaint and dismissal sua sponte was appropriate
Whether a Bivens/§ 1983-type claim is subject to PLRA exhaustion	Danko seeks relief under federal law for prison injury	PLRA and controlling precedent require exhaustion for inmate suits about prison life	Court applied PLRA and dismissed for nonexhaustion
Effect on IFP request if complaint dismissed for nonexhaustion	Danko requested IFP status to proceed	N/A (procedural)	Court recommended denial of IFP as moot given dismissal

Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory under the PLRA)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
Anderson v. XYZ Prison Health Servs., 407 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2005) (court may dismiss sua sponte where failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (standards and consequences for filing objections to magistrate recommendations)
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985) (procedural rules on magistrate judge recommendations and objections)
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984) (failure to timely object to a magistrate recommendation may waive appellate review)