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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7143 CURTIS Q. OWENS, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. BERNEDETT JEFFERSON, LtSMU in their individual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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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