Felix v. Beale

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 17, 2004
Docket04-6650
StatusUnpublished

This text of Felix v. Beale (Felix v. Beale) 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
Felix v. Beale, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6650

DANIEL E. FELIX,

Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

J. V. BEALE, Warden, DFCC; WAYNE BROWN, Operations Officer; E. B. WRIGHT, Assistant Warden; LIEUTENANT ARTIS; OFFICER LEWIS; CAPTAIN JONES,

Defendants - Appellees, and

JOHN DOE, D.C.O. Employees; MARK CONVERTINO; STEVE WHISENANT,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-03-1101-1-AM)

Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: December 17, 2004

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel E. Felix, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Christopher Hoppe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Daniel E. Felix filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action

in the district court, complaining of certain conditions of his

confinement at Deerfield Correctional Center in Virginia. The

district court dismissed the action after concluding that Felix

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). On appeal, Felix challenges this

holding.

We conclude that Felix has sufficiently demonstrated his

exhaustion of administrative remedies. Therefore, we reverse the

decision of the district court and remand the case for further

proceedings. 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.

REVERSED

- 3 -

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

Related

Suits by prisoners
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Felix v. Beale, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felix-v-beale-ca4-2004.