Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hinton v. Scott, 03-7268 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7268 Visitors: 36
Filed: Oct. 08, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7268 KENNETH A. HINTON; JOHN CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; WACKENHUT CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-944-5-F) Submitted: September 20, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUN
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7268 KENNETH A. HINTON; JOHN CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus WILLIE SCOTT, Warden; WACKENHUT CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-944-5-F) Submitted: September 20, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth A. Hinton, John Cunningham, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenneth A. Hinton and John Cunningham appeal the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and a subsequent order denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hinton v. Scott, No. CA-02-944-5-F (E.D.N.C. filed July 17, 2003 & entered July 18, 2003; filed Aug. 6, 2003 & entered Aug. 11, 2003). 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer