Filed: Jul. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6567 JEFFREY LEE HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIM BARBOUR, Lieutenant Colonel, Assistant Superintendent; KIMBERLY K. ROYAL; TIMOTHY LIGHTBOURNE, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-236-AM) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6567 JEFFREY LEE HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIM BARBOUR, Lieutenant Colonel, Assistant Superintendent; KIMBERLY K. ROYAL; TIMOTHY LIGHTBOURNE, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-236-AM) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6567 JEFFREY LEE HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TIM BARBOUR, Lieutenant Colonel, Assistant Superintendent; KIMBERLY K. ROYAL; TIMOTHY LIGHTBOURNE, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-236-AM) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Lee Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Lee Hall appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) com- plaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hall v. Barbour, No. CA-01-236-AM (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 26, 2001; entered Mar. 28, 2001). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2