The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-7530•Jerry C. Pulley v. JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner
03-7530Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 3, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7530
JERRY C. PULLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; THOMAS MCBRIDE,
Warden; MICHAEL COLEMAN, Deputy Warden;
PATRICIA HANSHAW, Mailroom Supervisor; STACY
THOMAS, Inmate Accounts Trustee; RITA DUNLAP,
Trustee Clerk; SHEILA HOSEY, Law Librarian,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CA-02-1217-5)
Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry C. Pulley, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Patrick Houdyschell,
Jr., WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jerry C. Pulley appeals the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief
on his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), based
on Pulley’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Pulley
also appeals the magistrate judge’s orders denying his motions to
amend the complaint and for the appointment of counsel. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, see Pulley v.
Rubenstein, No. CA-02-1217-5 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 17, 2004), and by the
magistrate judge, see id. (Dec. 10, 2002; Mar. 10, 2003; Aug. 12,
2003). We deny Pulley’s motion for the appointment of counsel and
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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.