Filed: Oct. 09, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6942 AMOS RAY GRISSETTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; LIEUTENANT CREECH; SERGEANT DREW; SERGEANT EUBANKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-97-348-5-BR) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6942 AMOS RAY GRISSETTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; LIEUTENANT CREECH; SERGEANT DREW; SERGEANT EUBANKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-97-348-5-BR) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6942 AMOS RAY GRISSETTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; LIEUTENANT CREECH; SERGEANT DREW; SERGEANT EUBANKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-97-348-5-BR) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amos Ray Grissette, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice for failure to ex- haust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 1997). Because Appellant did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative 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