Demetrius Hill v. Warden Haynes

Fourth Circuit

Demetrius Hill v. Warden Haynes

591 F. App'x 223

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 2015

Docket14-7325

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 591 F. App'x 223 (Demetrius Hill v. Warden Haynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Demetrius Hill v. Warden Haynes, 591 F. App'x 223 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In December 2006, Demetrius Hill, a federal inmate incarcerated during the relevant period at United States Penitentiary-Hazelton, filed a civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging various prison employees violated his First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment *224 rights by placing him in the Special Housing Unit without an incident report and under conditions that were so unsanitary and deplorable that they threatened his health and well-being. He further asserted that because he made complaints, the staff threatened to kill him and' refused him the materials necessary to file administrative remedies. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and dismissed Hill’s complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

On appeal, we vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for a determination whether the grievance procedure was “available” to Hill within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2012), namely, whether Defendants hindered Hill’s ability to exhaust administrative remedies. Hill v. Haynes, 380 Fed.Appx. 268 (4th Cir.2010) (No. 08-7244). On remand, the matter was referred to a magis-. trate judge, who held a three-day eviden-tiary hearing on this issue. In a detailed and thorough report, the magistrate judge concluded that prison officials did not hinder Hill’s ability to exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court accepted the recommendation and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hill v. Haynes, No. 3:06-cv-00136-GMG-JSK (ND.W.Va. Aug. 22, 2014). 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.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In December 2006, Demetrius Hill, a federal inmate incarcerated during the relevant period at United States Penitentiary-Hazelton, filed a civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging various prison employees violated his First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment *224 rights by placing him in the Special Housing Unit without an incident report and under conditions that were so unsanitary and deplorable that they threatened his health and well-being. He further asserted that because he made complaints, the staff threatened to kill him and' refused him the materials necessary to file administrative remedies. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and dismissed Hill’s complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

On appeal, we vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for a determination whether the grievance procedure was “available” to Hill within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2012), namely, whether Defendants hindered Hill’s ability to exhaust administrative remedies. Hill v. Haynes, 380 Fed.Appx. 268 (4th Cir.2010) (No. 08-7244). On remand, the matter was referred to a magis-. trate judge, who held a three-day eviden-tiary hearing on this issue. In a detailed and thorough report, the magistrate judge concluded that prison officials did not hinder Hill’s ability to exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court accepted the recommendation and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hill v. Haynes, No. 3:06-cv-00136-GMG-JSK (ND.W.Va. Aug. 22, 2014). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 F. App'x 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demetrius-hill-v-warden-haynes-ca4-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack