John Andrews v. Unknown Doc Employees (numbers 1-100) As Agents, Servants Or Employees of the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2075
JOHN ANDREWS; SOFIANE BENAFFANE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
UNKNOWN DOC EMPLOYEES (NUMBERS 1-100) AS
AGENTS, SERVANTS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES; UNKNOWN MRDCC INMATE; COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF WORCESTER COUNTY; IRA
SHOCKLEY, Warden, Worcester County Jail;
WORCESTER COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; UNKNOWN
WORCESTER COUNTY JAIL EMPLOYEES (NUMBERS 1-
100), as agents, servants or employees of the
Worcester County Jail; UNKNOWN WORCESTER
COUNTY JAIL INMATES (NUMBERS 1-100),
Defendants - Appellees,
and
STATE OF MARYLAND; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Division of
Correction; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN,
Commissioner, Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-04-396-WDQ)

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 25, 2005
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. P. Szymkowicz, John T. Szymkowicz, SZYMKOWICZ & SZYMKOWICZ, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Daniel Karp, Matthew Peter,
ALLEN, KARPINSKI, BRYANT & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
John Andrews and Sofiane Benaffane appeal from the
district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice their claims
against the County Commissioners of Worcester County, Warden Ira
Shockley, and various unknown employees and inmates of the
Worcester County Jail based on their failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
(2000), and denying their motion for entry of final judgment as to
these claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). We have reviewed
the briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s orders and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Andrews v. Maryland, No.
CA-04-396-WDQ (D. Md. June 3, 2004; July 22, 2004). 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

-- 3 of 3 --