Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Skipwith v. Southside Community, 01-6179 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6179 Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6179 JAMES B. SKIPWITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD; MECKLEN- BURG BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER, Mental Health Service, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-27-2) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6179 JAMES B. SKIPWITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD; MECKLEN- BURG BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER, Mental Health Service, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-27-2) Submitted: March 22, 2001 Decided: March 30, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Skipwith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James B. Skipwith appeals from the district court’s order dismissing, without prejudice, his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Based on the information before the district court, the court properly dismissed the action for failure to exhaust. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Skipwith v. Southside Community Servs. Bd., No. CA-01-27-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2001). We decline to consider in the first instance Skipwith’s allegations of exhaustion submitted after 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 * We note that Skipwith may be able to file a motion in the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 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