BOSTICK v. LAMB, 12-7443. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20130107067
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 07, 2013
Latest Update: Jan. 07, 2013
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eli Bostick appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies * and the court's order denying his Fed. R. Cir. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bostick v. Lamb, No. 5:10-ct-03148-BO (E.D.N.C. July 27, 2012).
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eli Bostick appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies * and the court's order denying his Fed. R. Cir. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bostick v. Lamb, No. 5:10-ct-03148-BO (E.D.N.C. July 27, 2012). W..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eli Bostick appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies* and the court's order denying his Fed. R. Cir. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bostick v. Lamb, No. 5:10-ct-03148-BO (E.D.N.C. July 27, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
FootNotes
* Although dismissals without prejudice generally are not appealable, we conclude that the court's order is a final order. See Domino Sugar v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Source: Leagle
