Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Addison v. Ridgeland Corr Inst, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Diunggah oleh

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 tayangan3 halaman
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of James Calvin Addison's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Addison did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available. Therefore, the court's dismissal of the action without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion.

    Deskripsi Asli:

    Filed: 2004-11-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6877

    Hak Cipta

    © Public Domain

    Format Tersedia

    PDF atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of James Calvin Addison's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Addison did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available. Therefore, the court's dismissal of the action without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion.

    Hak Cipta:

    Public Domain
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    2 tayangan3 halaman

    Addison v. Ridgeland Corr Inst, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Diunggah oleh

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of James Calvin Addison's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Addison did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available. Therefore, the court's dismissal of the action without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion.

    Hak Cipta:

    Public Domain
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-6877

    JAMES CALVIN ADDISON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; SOUTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CAPTAIN
    EICHELBERGER; CAPTAIN SALWIERZ; CHRISTOPHER
    FELDER, Major; BRUCE RIVERS, Associate Warden;
    MR. REX DERNE, School Principal; MS. SHANNON
    CREWS, Administrative Assistant; LIEUTENANT
    MCNEIL; CORPORAL HAYWARD, Security; TIMOTHY
    LILLY; OFFICE CLERK; ARTHUR LITHY, Law Library
    Clerk,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-04-550-2-20AJ)

    Submitted:

    November 4, 2004

    Decided:

    November 9, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Calvin Addison, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    James Calvin Addison seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice
    for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court
    properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42
    U.S.C. 1997e(a) (2000).

    Because Addison did not demonstrate to

    the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or


    that such remedies were not available, the courts dismissal of the
    action,

    without

    prejudice,

    was

    not

    an

    abuse

    of

    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order.

    discretion.
    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai