Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. Rouse, 97-7006 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7006 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7006 KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Bar-None-Royal Blackness, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD ROUSE; TERRELL CANNON, SR.; T. HALL; VAUGHN JACKSON; BOBBY RUTHERFORD; LAURIE BESSINGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-96-1900-0-23BD) Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: April 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, HAMI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7006 KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Bar-None-Royal Blackness, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD ROUSE; TERRELL CANNON, SR.; T. HALL; VAUGHN JACKSON; BOBBY RUTHERFORD; LAURIE BESSINGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-96-1900-0-23BD) Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: April 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Smith, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 for failure to exhaust administra- tive remedies as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (West Supp. 1997). 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, the court's dis- missal of the action was not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the district court's order but modify it to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to Appellant's right to refile the action after exhaustion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 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