Curtis Owens v. Bernedett Jefferson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:09-cv-02888-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998483640] [10-7143]

Download PDF
Curtis Owens v. Bernedett Jefferson Doc. 0 Case: 10-7143 Document: 13 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7143 CURTIS Q. OWENS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BERNEDETT JEFFERSON, LtSMU in their individual personal capacity under the color of state law; DARREN SEAWARD, Maj in their individual personal capacity under the color of state law; NFN ROBINSON, Inv DDI in their individual personal capacity under the color of state law; JERRY WASHINGTON, A-W in their individual personal capacity under the color of state law; ROBERT WARD, Dir of Ops in their individual personal capacity under the color of state law; JON OZMINT, Dir of SCDC in their individual personal capacity under the color of state law, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (0:09-cv-02888-TLW) Submitted: November 19, 2010 Decided: December 13, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-7143 Document: 13 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 Page: 2 Curtis Q. Owens, Appellant Pro Se. James Albert Stuckey, Jr., William J. Thrower, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Case: 10-7143 Document: 13 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 Page: 3 PER CURIAM: Curtis Q. Owens appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the district court's reasoning that Owens failed to properly claims exhaust available administrative as remedies by as 42 to his of constitutional (2006). magnitude required No. U.S.C. 1997e(a) Owens v. Jefferson, 0:09-cv-02888-TLW (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2010). 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 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?