Demetrius Hill v. Warden Haynes , 591 F. App'x 223 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7325
DEMETRIUS HILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN HAYNES; A. W. GILL; WARDEN DRIVER; CAPT. ODDO; LT.
CLEMENS; LT. GIFFORD; LT. TRAIT; C.O. SPOTLAN; FOSTER; C.O.
MORGAN; COUNSELOR MORRERO; ETRIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00136-GMG-JSK)
Submitted: January 23, 2015 Decided: February 4, 2015
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Demetrius Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Betsy C. Jividen, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In December 2006, Demetrius Hill, a federal inmate
incarcerated during the relevant period at United States
Penitentiary-Hazelton, filed a civil action pursuant to Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), alleging various prison employees violated his
First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights by placing him in the
Special Housing Unit without an incident report and under
conditions that were so unsanitary and deplorable that they
threatened his health and well-being. He further asserted that
because he made complaints, the staff threatened to kill him and
refused him the materials necessary to file administrative
remedies. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment and dismissed Hill’s complaint
without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.
On appeal, we vacated the district court’s judgment
and remanded for a determination whether the grievance procedure
was “available” to Hill within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a) (2012), namely, whether Defendants hindered Hill’s
ability to exhaust administrative remedies. Hill v. Haynes, 380
F. App’x 268 (4th Cir. 2010) (No. 08-7244). On remand, the
matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who held a three-day
evidentiary hearing on this issue. In a detailed and thorough
2
report, the magistrate judge concluded that prison officials did
not hinder Hill’s ability to exhaust his administrative
remedies. The district court accepted the recommendation and
granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Hill v. Haynes, No. 3:06-cv-00136-GMG-JSK (N.D.
W. Va. Aug. 22, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3