Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hall v. Dept of Corrections, 00-7811 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7811 Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7811 JERRY HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Commonwealth of Virginia; RON ANGELONE, Director; C.D. LARSEN, Warden; CAROL WALLACE, Associate Warden of Operations; DR. OFOGH, Chief Physician; DR. JACOBS, Chief Psychiatrist, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-243-2) Subm
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7811 JERRY HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Commonwealth of Virginia; RON ANGELONE, Director; C.D. LARSEN, Warden; CAROL WALLACE, Associate Warden of Operations; DR. OFOGH, Chief Physician; DR. JACOBS, Chief Psychiatrist, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-243-2) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerry Hall appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 2000). Because Appellant did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted admin- istrative 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
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