Filed: Jan. 26, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7657 PHILLIP SMALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN H. PILAND, Doctor; REGGIE WEISNER; KEITH WHITENER; MATT CLARK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-247) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7657 PHILLIP SMALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN H. PILAND, Doctor; REGGIE WEISNER; KEITH WHITENER; MATT CLARK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-247) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7657 PHILLIP SMALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN H. PILAND, Doctor; REGGIE WEISNER; KEITH WHITENER; MATT CLARK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-247) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip Small, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Phillip Small appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Small v. Piland, CA-05-247 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2005). 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 -
