Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Felix v. Beale, 04-6650 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-6650 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 17, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6650 DANIEL E. FELIX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. V. BEALE, Warden, DFCC; WAYNE BROWN, Operations Officer; E. B. WRIGHT, Assistant Warden; LIEUTENANT ARTIS; OFFICER LEWIS; CAPTAIN JONES, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, D.C.O. Employees; MARK CONVERTINO; STEVE WHISENANT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6650 DANIEL E. FELIX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. V. BEALE, Warden, DFCC; WAYNE BROWN, Operations Officer; E. B. WRIGHT, Assistant Warden; LIEUTENANT ARTIS; OFFICER LEWIS; CAPTAIN JONES, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOE, D.C.O. Employees; MARK CONVERTINO; STEVE WHISENANT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-03-1101-1-AM) Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: December 17, 2004 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel E. Felix, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Christopher Hoppe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Daniel E. Felix filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action in the district court, complaining of certain conditions of his confinement at Deerfield Correctional Center in Virginia. The district court dismissed the action after concluding that Felix failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). On appeal, Felix challenges this holding. We conclude that Felix has sufficiently demonstrated his exhaustion of administrative remedies. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings. 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. REVERSED - 3 -
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