Case ID: f-appx_241/html/0206-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gregory ROLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nurse HAVEN, Estelle Unit Medical Department; Warden S. Rich, Estelle Unit; J. Chaves, Administrator of Medical Department; Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Doug Dretke, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-20742
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 23, 2007.
    Gregory Roland, Huntsville, TX, pro se.
    
      Patrick Nicholas Brezik, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gregory Roland, Texas prisoner # 1125992, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that he blacked out and suffered a light stroke due to a denial of medical care by prison officials. The district court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed Roland’s complaint on the basis that Roland had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Roland filed a timely notice of appeal.

Roland argues that the district court erred in finding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the use of the prison grievance procedure. Roland filed a Step One grievance form numbered 2033222407. He did not, however, file a Step Two grievance form. He contends that he filed another Step One grievance form that he intended to serve as his Step Two form. It is undisputed that the second Step One form was returned to Roland unprocessed. Roland has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Roland also argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his requests for appointment of counsel. We have considered the relevant factors and conclude that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the appointment of counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.