Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Allah v. Montgomery, 02-7632 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7632 Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7632 SUPREME OUTSPOKEN 7 ALLAH, a/k/a Mark Meyers, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY, Deputy Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; GERALDINE MIRO, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution; JOHN PATE, Assistant Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution; BERNARD WALKER, Major, Allendale Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distr
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7632 SUPREME OUTSPOKEN 7 ALLAH, a/k/a Mark Meyers, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY, Deputy Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; GERALDINE MIRO, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution; JOHN PATE, Assistant Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution; BERNARD WALKER, Major, Allendale Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-958-0-24BF) Submitted: January 17, 2003 Decided: February 3, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Supreme Outspoken 7 Allah, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Supreme Outspoken 7 Allah appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Allah v. Montgomery, No. CA-01-958-0-24BF (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2002). We deny Allah’s motion for production of documents, his motion for an injunction, his motion to amend, his motion for declaratory judgment, his motion for an award of compensatory and punitive damages, his motion to review the record in the Clerk’s Office, his motion for sanctions, his motion to strike, and his motion for default judgment. 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