Michael James v. Daniel Cotter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion to appoint/assign counsel denied [999871410-2] Originating case number: 9:14-cv-04518-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999925052]. Mailed to: Michael D. James. [16-6110]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6110 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6110 MICHAEL D. JAMES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DANIEL COTTER, Perry CI Contraband Sgt; D. BURCINSKI, Contraband Cpl; S. DUFFY, Administrative Captain, Perry CI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (9:14-cv-04518-TLW) Submitted: August 3, 2016 Decided: September 8, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. James, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6110 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Michael D. James seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to defendants, and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Upon review, we vacate the district court’s order and remand the case with instructions to allow James a reasonable time to exhaust his administrative remedies and then, if necessary, move to amend his complaint. We deny James’ motion for appointment of counsel and 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 2

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?