Childress v. Pettiford

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6216
ERIC CHILDRESS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
M. PETTIFORD, FCI Bennettsville Warden in his individual
and official capacity; ASSISTANT WARDEN SMITH; ASSISTANT
WARDEN MASACONI; DENISE BAWLING, Captain, in her individual
and official capacity; D. SCHANTZ, SHU Lieutenant, in his
individual and official capacity; L. MILLER, Lieutenant, in
his individual and official capacity; D. MOORE, Lieutenant
Sr. Officer, in his individual and official capacity; LUIS
BERRIAS, Doctor, in his individual and official capacity;
JULIA BERRIAS, Doctor, in her individual and official
capacity; H. HANSEN, Nurse, in her individual and official
capacity; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CASH, in his individual and
official capacity; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER YOUNG, in his
individual and official capacity; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
DOUGLAS, in his individual and official capacity;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JONES, in his individual and official
capacity; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CARTWRIGHT, in his
individual and official capacity; J. STREEVAL, in his
individual and official capacity; CASE MANAGER STREAMER, in
his individual and official capacity; COUNSELOR LEWIS, in
his individual and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (4:08-cv-01001-SB)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Childress, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Eric Childress appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Childress v. Pettiford,
No. 4:08-cv-01001-SB (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 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