Filed: Dec. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7247 JOHNNY R. HUFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. R. DAY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-480-7) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny R. Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7247 JOHNNY R. HUFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. R. DAY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-480-7) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny R. Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7247
JOHNNY R. HUFF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
L. R. DAY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-480-7)
Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny R. Huff, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Johnny R. Huff appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint without preju-
dice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district
court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under
42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 2001). Because Huff did not
demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted admin-
istrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the
court’s dismissal of the action, without prejudice, was not an
abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the district court’s
order. 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
2