Woltz v. Nash

Fourth Circuit

Woltz v. Nash

474 F. App'x 270

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 2012

DocketNo. 12-6275

StatusPublished

This text of 474 F. App'x 270 (Woltz v. Nash) 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

Woltz v. Nash, 474 F. App'x 270 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Howell W. Woltz appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint, which was filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), for failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not err in reaching this dispositive conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Woltz v. Nash, No. 5:11-cv-00058, 2012 WL 314173 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 1, 2012). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Howell W. Woltz appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint, which was filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), for failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not err in reaching this dispositive conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Woltz v. Nash, No. 5:11-cv-00058, 2012 WL 314173 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 1, 2012). 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)

474 F. App'x 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woltz-v-nash-ca4-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack