Case ID: f-appx_79/html/0725-01.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

Rudolfo B. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Up BREAUX; Unidentified Party, Jane Doe, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-41192.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 6, 2003.
    Rudolfo B. Martinez, pro se, Huntsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Proceeding pro se and informa pauper-is, Rudolfo B. Martinez, Texas prisoner #340699, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Breaux, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice property officer, and Jane Doe. The district court found that Martinez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and dismissed the action without prejudice. (Martinez’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See, e.g., Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir.1987).)

Martinez maintains he was unable to comply with the administrative procedures—which require filing the step 1 grievance with the step 2 grievance—because his step 1 grievance was never returned to him. There is no evidence in the record supporting this claim. Martinez has not shown that the district court erred when it found the failure to exhaust. See Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 890-91 (5th Cir.1998). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.