Adams v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections

First Circuit

Adams v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections

80 F. App'x 689

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedNovember 17, 2003

Docket03-1456

StatusPublished

This text of 80 F. App'x 689 (Adams v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections, 80 F. App'x 689 (1st Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pro se inmate Marc Adams appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C § 1997e(a). We have reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions and conclude that, contrary to appellant’s contentions, the district court applied the proper standards of law and correctly concluded that appellant had failed to exhaust his PLRA remedies. To the extent appellant argues that defendants waived or should have been estopped from asserting the failure-to-exhaust defense, his arguments are legally and factually unfounded.

Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27(c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Pro se inmate Marc Adams appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C § 1997e(a). We have reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions and conclude that, contrary to appellant’s contentions, the district court applied the proper standards of law and correctly concluded that appellant had failed to exhaust his PLRA remedies. To the extent appellant argues that defendants waived or should have been estopped from asserting the failure-to-exhaust defense, his arguments are legally and factually unfounded.

Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 F. App'x 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-commissioner-new-hampshire-department-of-corrections-ca1-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack