Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Andrew Belfield, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Southampton Correctional Center, Department of I.c.c.,defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 902 F.2d 27Unpublished Disposition
Submitted April 2, 1990.Decided April 16, 1990
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Chief District Judge. (C/A No. 89-1206-AM)
Andrew Belfield, appellant pro se.
E.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Belfield appeals the district court's order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to demonstrate administrative exhaustion. Acting pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, the district court ordered appellant to exhaust administrative remedies and to advise the court within 100 days of the result of the administrative proceedings. It warned appellant that failure to advise the court regarding exhaustion would result in dismissal of the action. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice upon expiration of the 100-day period, appellant not having complied with its order.
The district court could properly require exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. Its dismissal of the action, without prejudice, when appellant failed to comply with its order was not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the judgment below. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues have recently been decided authoritatively.
AFFIRMED