Owens v. Butler

Fourth Circuit

Owens v. Butler

678 F. App'x 172

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 2017

DocketNo. 16-6250

StatusPublished

This text of 678 F. App'x 172 (Owens v. Butler) 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

Owens v. Butler, 678 F. App'x 172 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tommy Owens appeals the district court’s, order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and conclude that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether Owens exhausted his administrative remedies. However, we con- . elude that the district court correctly held in the alternative that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e may [173]*173affirm a district court’s ruling on any-ground apparent in the record.”) Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and modify the order to reflect a dismissal with prejudice. Owens v. Butler, No. 5:15-ct-03033-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 2016). 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 AS MODIFIED

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tommy Owens appeals the district court’s, order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and conclude that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether Owens exhausted his administrative remedies. However, we con- . elude that the district court correctly held in the alternative that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e may [173]*173affirm a district court’s ruling on any-ground apparent in the record.”) Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and modify the order to reflect a dismissal with prejudice. Owens v. Butler, No. 5:15-ct-03033-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 2016). 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 AS MODIFIED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

678 F. App'x 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-butler-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack