Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Small v. Piland, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Phillip Small's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court had dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Small did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing the § 1983 claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Small v. Piland, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Phillip Small's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court had dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Small did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing the § 1983 claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-01-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7657

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Phillip Small's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court had dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Small did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing the § 1983 claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views2 pages

    Small v. Piland, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Phillip Small's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court had dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Small did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing the § 1983 claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7657

    PHILLIP SMALL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN H. PILAND, Doctor; REGGIE WEISNER; KEITH
    WHITENER; MATT CLARK,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (CA-05-247)

    Submitted: January 19, 2006

    Decided:

    January 26, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Phillip Small, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Phillip

    Small

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to


    exhaust administrative remedies.
    the

    district

    courts

    opinion

    We have reviewed the record and


    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See


    Small v. Piland, CA-05-247 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2005).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like