Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Huff v. Day, 01-7247 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7247 Visitors: 25
Filed: Dec. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7247 JOHNNY R. HUFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. R. DAY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-480-7) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny R. Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Un
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 01-7247



JOHNNY R. HUFF,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


L. R. DAY,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-480-7)


Submitted:   November 29, 2001            Decided:   December 6, 2001


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Johnny R. Huff, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Johnny R. Huff 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 Huff 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