SPRINGER v. CAPLE ADC (2018)

[Unpublished]

In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate Glen Springer appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment based on its conclusion that Springer failed to exhaust administrative remedies and failed to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Upon de novo review, see King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corrs., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010), we agree with the district court that Springer failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit and therefore affirm the dismissal of the action on that basis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); King, 598 F.3d at 1053. We modify the dismissal, however, to be without prejudice. See Porter v. Sturm, 781 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2015); Davis v. Harmon, 389 Fed. Appx. 587 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished per curiam). We also conclude the district court properly denied Springer’s motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006).

The judgment is affirmed as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

PER CURIAM.