Small v. Streater

Fourth Circuit

Small v. Streater

164 F. App'x 366

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2006

DocketNo. 05-7622

StatusPublished

This text of 164 F. App'x 366 (Small v. Streater) 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

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

Pincite

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. Streater, CA-04-193-3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 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. Streater, CA-04-193-3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 F. App'x 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-streater-ca4-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack