Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Russell v. Leach, 04-6446 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6446 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6446 EVERETT T. RUSSELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORPORAL LEACH, Work Release Coordinator; MIKE TAYLOR, Sergeant, Food Service Supervisor; DOCTOR OFOGH, JJD, Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-126) Submitted: October 1, 2004 Decided: October
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6446 EVERETT T. RUSSELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORPORAL LEACH, Work Release Coordinator; MIKE TAYLOR, Sergeant, Food Service Supervisor; DOCTOR OFOGH, JJD, Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-126) Submitted: October 1, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Everett T. Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Everett T. Russell appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of the complaint without prejudice to allow Russell an opportunity to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by § 1997e(a). Accordingly, we 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 -
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