Filed: Mar. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7875 STANLEY A. BLAKEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER MCCUEN, Kitchen Officer; MAJOR LYCETT; LIEUTENANT MOORE, Head of discipline committee, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-747-2) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirm
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7875 STANLEY A. BLAKEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER MCCUEN, Kitchen Officer; MAJOR LYCETT; LIEUTENANT MOORE, Head of discipline committee, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-01-747-2) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirme..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7875
STANLEY A. BLAKEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
OFFICER MCCUEN, Kitchen Officer; MAJOR LYCETT;
LIEUTENANT MOORE, Head of discipline
committee,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-01-747-2)
Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley A. Blakey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stanley A. Blakey appeals the district court’s order dismiss-
ing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The dis-
trict court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies
under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 2001). Because Blakey did
not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted ad-
ministrative 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