Argeni Bataldo-Castillo v. Travis Bragg
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:15-cv-03717-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000034887]. Mailed to: Gibbs, Castillo. [16-6726]
Appeal: 16-6726
Doc: 5
Filed: 03/03/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6726
ARGENI BATALDO-CASTILLO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN TRAVIS M. BRAGG,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Richard M. Gergel, District
Judge. (6:15-cv-03717-RMG)
Submitted:
January 30, 2017
Decided:
March 3, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Argeni Bataldo-Castillo, Appellant Pro Se.
Christopher Gibbs,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6726
Doc: 5
Filed: 03/03/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Argeni
district
Bataldo-Castillo,
court’s
magistrate
order
judge
and
(2012) petition.
a
federal
accepting
denying
prisoner,
the
relief
appeals
recommendation
on
his
28
U.S.C.
of
the
the
§ 2241
It is undisputed that Bataldo-Castillo did not
exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his petition.
Although the district court denied Bataldo-Castillo’s petition
with prejudice on the merits, we conclude that the dismissal
should have been without prejudice for failure to exhaust.
Timms
v.
Johns,
Accordingly,
we
627
F.3d
affirm
the
525,
530-31
dismissal
(4th
order
as
reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice.
§ 2106 (2012).
Cir.
See
2010).
modified
to
See 28 U.S.C.
We 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.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
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?