Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06743/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06743-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Boyd Bennett
Appellee
Department of Correction
Appellee
FNU Gribble
Appellee
Marqueion Harrison
Appellant
State of North Carolina
Appellee
Keith Whitener
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6743

MARQUEION HARRISON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Individually, and in his and her 

official capacity; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Division of 

Prisons, Individually, and in his and her official capacity; 

BOYD BENNETT, Director of the State of North Carolina, 

Individually, and in his and her official capacity; KEITH 

WHITENER, Superintendent of Alexander Correctional 

Institution, Individually, and in his and her official 

capacity; FNU GRIBBLE, Correctional Officer of the North 

Carolina Department of Corrections, Individually, and in his 

and her official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,

Senior District Judge. (5:10-cv-00044-GCM)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 1, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marqueion Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. 

Appeal: 10-6743 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6743 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Marqueion Harrison appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

complaint for failure exhaust administrative remedies.∗ We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Harrison v. North Carolina, No. 5:10-cv-00044-GCM (W.D.N.C. Apr. 

23, 2010). We deny Harrison’s motion to appoint counsel and 

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

 ∗ Because the record clearly establishes that exhaustion did 

not occur, the order is final. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar 

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (1993).

Appeal: 10-6743 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pg: 3 of 3