Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jackson v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Lawrence Morgan Jackson of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court had properly required exhaustion of remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a). Jackson did not demonstrate that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, so the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. The appeals court denied in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-06-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-6220

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Lawrence Morgan Jackson of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court had properly required exhaustion of remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a). Jackson did not demonstrate that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, so the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. The appeals court denied in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    Jackson v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from Lawrence Morgan Jackson of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court had properly required exhaustion of remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a). Jackson did not demonstrate that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, so the district court's dismissal without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. The appeals court denied in forma pauperis status and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-6220

    LAWRENCE MORGAN JACKSON,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; PIEDMONT REGIONAL
    JAIL; MR. BARLOW, Superintendent; MR. MARSHALL, Captain; LIEUTENANT WINNE; DOCTOR
    GORDEN; JAILORS; MRS. WRIGHT, Nurse,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
    (CA-97-131-2)
    Submitted:

    May 29, 1997

    Decided:

    June 10, 1997

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lawrence Morgan Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42
    U.S.C. 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required
    exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. 1997e(a)
    (West Supp. 1997). Because Appellant did not demonstrate to the
    district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or
    that such remedies were not available, the court's dismissal of the
    action, without prejudice, was not an abuse of discretion. We
    therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
    appeal. 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.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like