Filed: May 03, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7731 ANTONIO MARTINELLE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. L. FUERTES ROSARIO, HSA-MLP; JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden; G. LINK, Physicians Assistant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (9:09-cv-03166-RMG) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7731 ANTONIO MARTINELLE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. L. FUERTES ROSARIO, HSA-MLP; JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden; G. LINK, Physicians Assistant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (9:09-cv-03166-RMG) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7731
ANTONIO MARTINELLE RANDOLPH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
L. FUERTES ROSARIO, HSA-MLP; JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden; G.
LINK, Physicians Assistant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(9:09-cv-03166-RMG)
Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 3, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Martinelle Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier
Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Martinelle Randolph appeals the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing without prejudice Randolph’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Randolph v. Rosario, No. 9:09-cv-03166-RMG
(D.S.C. Dec. 1, 2010). We deny Randolph’s motion for stay and
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