Filed: Oct. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6949 LARRY D. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR THOMPKINS, Doctor of Chesterfield Jail; RONALD C. O’SHIELDS, Jail Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-338-2) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6949 LARRY D. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR THOMPKINS, Doctor of Chesterfield Jail; RONALD C. O’SHIELDS, Jail Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-338-2) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Ci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6949 LARRY D. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR THOMPKINS, Doctor of Chesterfield Jail; RONALD C. O’SHIELDS, Jail Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-338-2) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry D. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Larry D. Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint without preju- dice 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. 2001). Because Smith 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