Michael Wardlow v. Richard Neely

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00596-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998960098]. Mailed to: Michael L. Wardlow. [12-7135]

Appeal: 12-7135

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/16/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7135

MICHAEL L. WARDLOW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD NEELY, Superintendent; LAWRENCE PARSONS, Assist.
Superintendent; KORY DALRYMPLE, Assist. Superintendent of
Programs; DENNIS MARSHALL, Assist. Unit Mgr.; LISA MARTIN,
Captain;
LIEUTENANT
WHITE;
JOHN
DOE;
TODD
PINION,
Superintendent/Correctional
Administrator;
CHRIS
BIRD,
Nurse; SAMMY HASSAN, Doctor; E. WALRATH, Nurse,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00596-RJC)

Submitted:

October 11, 2012

Decided:

October 16, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Wardlow, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Raleigh,
Appellees.

Lisa
North

Yvette Harper,
Carolina,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7135

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/16/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael L. Wardlow appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies.

We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error in the district court’s exhaustion
ruling, based on the record before it.

See Fed. R. App. P.

10(a) (the record on appeal consists only of a certified copy of
the docket, the transcripts of any proceedings, and the original
papers and exhibits filed in the district court). *
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

*

To the extent that Wardlow’s amended complaint contended
that a prison guard violated the Eighth Amendment while placing
Wardlow in segregation, we note that it fails to allege that the
guard applied any force “maliciously and sadistically for the
very purpose of causing harm” rather than “in a good-faith
effort to maintain or restore discipline.”
Whitley v. Albers,
475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted);
see also Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (noting the
factors applicable to determining whether a prison official has
acted with the requisitely culpable state of mind).
As a
result, even if Wardlow exhausted his administrative remedies as
to this claim, it was nonetheless properly dismissed.

2