Filed: Oct. 03, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7093 ANDRE SYLVESTER WATTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden; RODNEY MYERS, Unit Manager of Building I; MS. WILLIS, Case Manager; STRICKLAND, Assistant Warden; KIM WHITE, Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:06-cv-00269-gec) Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decide
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7093 ANDRE SYLVESTER WATTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden; RODNEY MYERS, Unit Manager of Building I; MS. WILLIS, Case Manager; STRICKLAND, Assistant Warden; KIM WHITE, Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:06-cv-00269-gec) Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7093
ANDRE SYLVESTER WATTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden; RODNEY MYERS, Unit
Manager of Building I; MS. WILLIS, Case
Manager; STRICKLAND, Assistant Warden; KIM
WHITE, Mid-Atlantic Regional Office,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(7:06-cv-00269-gec)
Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 3, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andre Sylvester Watts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM
Andre Sylvester Watts appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his Bivens* complaint without prejudice for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies and denying his motion filed under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The district court properly required
exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
(2000). Because Watts did not fully exhaust his administrative
remedies, we find no error in the court’s dismissal of the action
without prejudice. Id. Nor did the district court abuse its
discretion in denying Watts’ Rule 59(e) motion. See Pacific Ins.
Co. v. American Nat’l Fire Ins. Co.,
148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir.
1998) (providing standard). We therefore affirm the district
court’s orders. 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
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
- 2 -