Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Blankenship v. Hutchings, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clyde Blankenship's § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion under § 1997e(a) because Blankenship did not demonstrate that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available. Dismissal with prejudice was also appropriate because the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court denied Blankenship's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-08-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6330

    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 affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clyde Blankenship's § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion under § 1997e(a) because Blankenship did not demonstrate that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available. Dismissal with prejudice was also appropriate because the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court denied Blankenship's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    Blankenship v. Hutchings, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Clyde Blankenship's § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion under § 1997e(a) because Blankenship did not demonstrate that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available. Dismissal with prejudice was also appropriate because the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court denied Blankenship's motion for appointment of counsel and dispensed with oral argument.

    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. 98-6330

    CLYDE BLANKENSHIP,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ROGER HUTCHINGS; DAVID T. FLAHERTY; THE CALDWELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District
    Judge. (CA-96-167-5-MU)

    Submitted:

    July 22, 1998

    Decided:

    August 6, 1998

    Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Clyde Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Clyde Blankenship appeals the district courts order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) complaint 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. 1998). Because Blankenship did not
    demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the
    courts dismissal of the action was not an abuse of discretion. We
    note that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate in this case
    because the claims Blankenship seeks to assert are barred by the
    applicable limitations period. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-52(5) (Supp.
    1997); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-68 (1985). Accordingly,
    we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Blankenship
    v. Hutchings, No. CA-96-167-5-MU (W.D. N.C. Jan. 21, 1998). We deny
    Appellants motion for appointment of counsel. 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

    You might also like