Aaron French v. Warden et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-02299-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998653732]. Mailed to: Aaron Little French. [10-7756]

Appeal: 10-7756

Document: 21

Date Filed: 08/12/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7756

AARON FRENCH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN; JOHN ROWLEY; J. LOIBEL; DAN WATSON, Lieutenant;
WARNER, Lieutenant; WHETSTONE, Officer; SPIKER, Officer;
RYAN, Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-02299-CCB)

Submitted:

August 3, 2011

Decided:

August 12, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron French, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie Gatewood, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-7756

Document: 21

Date Filed: 08/12/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Aaron

Little

French,

a

Maryland

state

prisoner,

brought a civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) against
prison staff.
that

The district court dismissed the action, finding

French

French

failed

appeals

the

to

exhaust

district

his

administrative

court’s

orders

remedies.

granting

judgment and denying his motion for reconsideration.

summary
We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
A

prisoner

administrative
concerning
Woodford
exhaustion

properly

prior

to

filing

42

U.S.C.

remedies

prison
v.

must

conditions.

Ngo,

requires

548

U.S.

using

81,

every

90
step

with relevant procedural requirements).

exhaust
a
§

(2006)

§

available
1983

action

1997e(a)

(2006);

(explaining

available

and

that

complying

French contended in the

district court that he could not complete the administrative
review

process

grievances.

because

prison

staff

did

not

respond

to

his

Maryland Division of Correction Directive 185-002

(“DCD 185-002”) provides, however, that a prisoner should treat
a failure to respond within thirty days as a denial and file an
appeal to the next level.

Assuming, as French contended, that

he received no response to his grievances, under DCD 185-002,
and based on the dates of his initial grievance and the filing
of the complaint in this action, he could not have completed the
grievance process before he filed suit in the district court.
2

Appeal: 10-7756

Document: 21

Date Filed: 08/12/2011

Page: 3 of 3

Thus, the district court properly concluded that French failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

order

granting summary judgment but modify the dismissal to be without
prejudice
complete.
abuse

its

to

French’s

right

to

refile

once

exhaustion

is

We also conclude that the district court did not
discretion

reconsideration.

by

denying

French’s

motion

for

See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599

F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard for review of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion).

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 AS MODIFIED

3