Small v. Piland

Fourth Circuit

Small v. Piland

164 F. App'x 366

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 26, 2006·No. No. 05-7657·Published

Opinion

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

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

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

Small v. Piland, 164 F. App'x 366 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

164 F. App'x 366 (Small v. Piland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related