Bobby Grady v. Carey Winders ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7752
BOBBY RAY GRADY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAREY WINDERS; FANE GREENFIELD, Major; DEPUTY BIGGINS;
KEITH HARTZOG, Detective Sergeant; CARL E. LANCASTER,
Lieutenant; KENNETH LUPTON, Sergeant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:11-ct-03257-BO)
Submitted: February 20, 2013 Decided: February 25, 2013
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Ray Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John
Derrenbacher, PATTERSON DILTHEY, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Ray Grady appeals from the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by
the district court. Grady v. Winders, No. 5:11-ct-03257-BO
(E.D.N.C. Oct. 4, 2012). In addition, we decline to consider
claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United
States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Finally, we note that
certain of Grady’s claims appear to be prematurely filed. See
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). However, because
the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, Grady is not
barred from refiling his complaint if he can cure the defects in
exhaustion on the claims required to be exhausted or once his
claims have actually accrued under Heck. 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
2