IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY ROGERS PLAINTIFF #540002

Vv. No. 3:24-cv-28-DPM-JJV DANE BARNUM, Training Officer, G.C.D.C.; JASMINE SANCHEZ, Compliance Officer, G.C.D.C.; THOMAS OLMOS, Cpl. Officer, G.C.D.C.; J. HOYER, Officer, G.C.D.C.; CAMERON HUGHES, Sergeant, G.C.D.C.; and ETHAN HUFFSTETLER, Officer, G.C.D.C. DEFENDANTS ORDER On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Volpe’s partial recommendation, Doc. 77, and overrules defendants’ objections, Doc. 81. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The defendants haven’t shown that there is no genuine factual dispute that Rogers failed to exhaust fully his available administrative remedies. They aren’t prohibited from exploring in discovery and raising exhaustion as an affirmative defense at trial. E.g., Foulk v. Charrier,

(8th Cir. 2001). But they haven’t shown that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on exhaustion. The motion for summary judgment, Doc. 61, is denied.

So Ordered. □□□ □□□ i -—— D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge

-2-