Filed: Apr. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7948 BILL DOUGLAS PAILIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RESTON HOSPITAL CENTER; PADMA K. SHUKLA, Emergency Room Physician, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-04-1152) Submitted: March 9, 2005 Decided: April 15, 2005 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7948 BILL DOUGLAS PAILIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RESTON HOSPITAL CENTER; PADMA K. SHUKLA, Emergency Room Physician, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-04-1152) Submitted: March 9, 2005 Decided: April 15, 2005 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7948
BILL DOUGLAS PAILIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RESTON HOSPITAL CENTER; PADMA K. SHUKLA,
Emergency Room Physician,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-04-1152)
Submitted: March 9, 2005 Decided: April 15, 2005
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bill Douglas Pailin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bill Douglas Pailin (“Pailin”), a Virginia inmate,
appeals from an order of the district court dismissing without
prejudice Pailin’s claim filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)
for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. This court has
held “that a plaintiff may not appeal the dismissal of his
complaint without prejudice unless the grounds for dismissal
clearly indicate that ‘no amendment [in the complaint] could cure
the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar
Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993).
Pailin alleges that he was not incarcerated or in custody at the
time he received medical treatment; thus, it is not possible for
him to pursue prison administrative remedies in connection with
this dispute. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the district
court and remand for further consideration. We deny Pailin’s
motion for appointment of counsel. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 2 -