Small v. Piland
This text of Small v. Piland (Small v. Piland) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7657
PHILLIP SMALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN H. PILAND, Doctor; REGGIE WEISNER; KEITH WHITENER; MATT CLARK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-247)
Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip Small, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Phillip Small appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Small v. Piland, CA-05-247 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2005). 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
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Small v. Piland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-piland-ca4-2006.