Kevin L. Martin, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Sgt Chilling, et al.1 Appellees-Defendants (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Kevin L. Martin, a Department of Correction inmate, sued Daniel Childers, a correctional officer. Martin alleged that Childers assaulted and injured him and then failed to get him medical care. Childers moved for summary judgment on two grounds, arguing that Martin's action is barred by the statute of limitations and that Martin failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. The trial court agreed with both arguments and granted summary judgment to Childers. Martin now appeals.

[2] Martin first argues that the court reporter and this Court violated his “equal-protection right to obtain transcript.” Appellant's Br. p. 10. In his notice of appeal, Martin requested a transcript from April 14, 2026. The court reporter then moved for clarification, stating that no hearing was held that day. In response, Martin correctly noted that, on April 1, the trial court scheduled a summary-judgment hearing for April 14. But the chronological case summary indicates that the hearing never took place (for some unstated reason). See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 pp. 24-25. In his brief, Martin insists that a hearing was held on April 14, but he offers no proof beyond the fact that a hearing was scheduled. Appellant's Br. pp. 13-15. Because Martin hasn't shown that there is something to transcribe, his claim based on the lack of a transcript fails. We therefore turn to his other arguments.

[3] This case has a convoluted procedural history, and Martin's argument about the statute of limitations gives us some pause. But we need not discuss that issue because the trial court also granted summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and Martin hasn't developed a coherent argument challenging that conclusion. As the trial court noted, “The Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) Offender Grievance Process requires inmates to complete three steps to exhaust administrative remedies: (1) a formal grievance, (2) an appeal to the Warden, and (3) an appeal to the Department Grievance Manager.” Id. at 33 (Appealed Order). Martin first claims that he “complete[d] the steps” but then mentions only submitting a grievance and requesting a hearing. Id. at 24. He says nothing about an appeal to the warden or an appeal to the Department Grievance Manager. Next, Martin pivots to suggesting that he should be excused from exhausting his administrative remedies, but he doesn't explain why. Id. Finally, he claims he is entitled to have a jury determine whether he exhausted his administrative remedies. But he again fails to explain why, beyond a vague, conclusory assertion that the exhaustion issue is “intertwined” with the merits of his lawsuit. Id. at 24-26. By failing to support his exhaustion argument with cogent reasoning, Martin waived the issue. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a); Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023). We therefore affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Childers.

[4] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and May, J., concur.