Herman Lee Noble v. Sergeant Conner Dan T. Mahon, Assistant Warden

900 F.2d 254, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 4667, 1990 WL 42100

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 30, 1990
• Docket: 89-6009
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

900 F.2d 254
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Herman Lee NOBLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Sergeant CONNER; Dan T. Mahon, Assistant Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-6009.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 29, 1989.
Decided: March 30, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-256-AM)

Herman Lee Noble, appellant pro se.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Herman Lee Noble appeals the district court's order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to demonstrate administrative exhaustion. Acting pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, the district court ordered appellant to exhaust administrative remedies and to advise the court within 100 days of the result of the administrative proceedings. It warned appellant that failure to advise the court regarding exhaustion would result in dismissal of the action. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice upon expiration of the 100-day period, appellant not having complied with its order.

The district court could properly require exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. Its dismissal of the action, without prejudice, when appellant failed to comply with its order was not abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the judgment below. 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