Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Baker v. Kidd, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Diunggah oleh

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 tayangan2 halaman
    1) Keith Baker, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a prison official for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 2) Baker provided evidence on appeal that he had pursued administrative remedies before filing his complaint, which was not submitted to the district court. 3) The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the district court's dismissal was not a final order, as Baker could amend his complaint to address the exhaustion issue, so the case was not suitable for appellate review.

    Deskripsi Asli:

    Filed: 2004-01-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7234

    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
    1) Keith Baker, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a prison official for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 2) Baker provided evidence on appeal that he had pursued administrative remedies before filing his complaint, which was not submitted to the district court. 3) The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the district court's dismissal was not a final order, as Baker could amend his complaint to address the exhaustion issue, so the case was not suitable for appellate review.

    Hak Cipta:

    Public Domain
    Unduh sebagai PDF atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    4 tayangan2 halaman

    Baker v. Kidd, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Diunggah oleh

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Keith Baker, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a prison official for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 2) Baker provided evidence on appeal that he had pursued administrative remedies before filing his complaint, which was not submitted to the district court. 3) The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the district court's dismissal was not a final order, as Baker could amend his complaint to address the exhaustion issue, so the case was not suitable for appellate review.

    Hak Cipta:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7234

    KEITH E. BAKER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DARRELL KIDD, Lieutenant Deputy,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
    Judge. (CA-03-511)

    Submitted: December 19, 2003

    Decided:

    January 13, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Keith E. Baker, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Keith E. Baker, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district
    courts order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint
    without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
    pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) (2000).

    Baker has provided this

    court with evidence not submitted to the district court showing


    that he had pursued administrative remedies prior to filing his
    1983 action.

    Because Baker may amend his complaint to cure the

    defect identified by the district court, the dismissal order is not


    final and thus is not subject to appellate review.

    See Domino

    Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
    (4th Cir. 1993).
    We therefore dismiss the appeal.

    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.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai