Tracey Grady v. Captain Williams

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:16-ct-03027-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000281333]. Mailed to: Tracey Grady. [18-6092]

Appeal: 18-6092

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/24/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6092

TRACEY TERRELL GRADY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN WILLIAMS; SERGEANT WESTERN; OFFICER NEAL; OFFICER
PERRY,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
OFFICER HENDERSON; SERGEANT GARDNER; SERGEANT PEARSON;
OFFICER COOPER,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:16-ct-03027-D)

Submitted: April 19, 2018

Decided: April 24, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 18-6092

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/24/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

Tracey Terrell Grady, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 18-6092

Doc: 10

Filed: 04/24/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tracey Terrell Grady appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants
summary judgment in Grady’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and dismissing the action
due to Grady’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Although Grady argues that prison officials thwarted his
efforts to pursue an institutional grievance pertaining to the challenged incident, the
district court properly rejected that contention as inconsistent with both the record and
Grady’s earlier version of the facts. See Ross v. Blake, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1850,
1858-60 (2016) (clarifying when administrative remedies are deemed unavailable).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Williams, No. 5:16-ct-03027-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2018).

See Grady v.

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

3