UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DEMETRIUS GOHRE,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 23-C-952

RILEY CORNOG,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Demetrius Gohre, who is incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution and representing himself, is proceeding on a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Riley Cornog based on allegations that, while Gohre was incarcerated at the Milwaukee County Jail, Defendant destroyed Gohre’s legal materials and sent him to segregation on false rule violations because Gohre had filed grievances against him. On February 5, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Gohre failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies before he initiated this action. Dkt. No. 19. In a notice and order, the Court reminded Gohre that under Civil L. R. 56(b)(2) his response materials were due March 6, 2024. Dkt. No. 24. The Court warned Gohre that, if he failed to respond to the motion by the deadline, the Court would accept all facts asserted by Defendant as undisputed, which would likely result in summary judgment being granted in Defendant’s favor and the case being dismissed. The deadline has passed, and Gohre did not respond to Defendant’s motion or explain why he was unable to do so. The Court has reviewed Defendant’s motion, brief in support, and the undisputed facts, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2), and concludes that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3). Based on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Defendant and deemed true as a result of Gohre’s failure to respond, the Court finds that Gohre did not file a grievance

asserting that Cornog had retaliated against him. Because Gohre failed to give the jail notice of his claim, he failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. Defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment. See King v. Dart,

(7th Cir. 2023). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 14th day of March, 2024. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach United States District Judge This order and the judgment to follow are final. Plaintiff may appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing in this Court a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4. This Court may extend this deadline if a party timely requests an extension and shows good cause or excusable neglect for not being able to meet the 30-day deadline. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). If Plaintiff appeals, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the appeal’s outcome. If Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, he must file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this Court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Plaintiff may be assessed another “strike” by the Court of Appeals if his appeal is found to be non- meritorious. See

(g). If Plaintiff accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to file an action in federal court (except as a petition for habeas corpus relief) without prepaying the filing fee unless he demonstrates that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Under certain circumstances, a party may ask this Court to alter or amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment. Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time, generally no more than one year after the entry of judgment. The Court cannot extend these deadlines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2).

A party is expected to closely review all applicable rules and determine, what, if any, further action is appropriate in a case.