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)
10-7143•Curtis Q. Owens v. BERNEDETT JEFFERSON, LtSMU in their individual personal capacity under the color of…
10-7143Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 13, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7143
CURTIS Q. OWENS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BERNEDETT JEFFERSON, LtSMU in their individual personal
capacity under the color of state law; DARREN SEAWARD, Maj
in their individual personal capacity under the color of
state law; NFN ROBINSON, Inv DDI in their individual
personal capacity under the color of state law; JERRY
WASHINGTON, A-W in their individual personal capacity under
the color of state law; ROBERT WARD, Dir of Ops in their
individual personal capacity under the color of state law;
JON OZMINT, Dir of SCDC in their individual personal
capacity under the color of state law,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(0:09-cv-02888-TLW)
Submitted: November 19, 2010 Decided: December 13, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Curtis Q. Owens, Appellant Pro Se. James Albert Stuckey, Jr.,
William J. Thrower, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Q. Owens appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm on the district court’s reasoning that Owens failed to
properly exhaust available administrative remedies as to his
claims of constitutional magnitude as required by 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a) (2006). Owens v. Jefferson, No. 0:09-cv-02888-TLW
(D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2010). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.