Case Name: Paul E. SEELIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin KELLER; Robert Lewis; Paula Smith; Gibbs; Mark Schuman; James Wiggins; Dr. Bell; M. Crudup, Correctional Officer; McRae, Correctional Officer; John Doe 1-100, Correctional Officer; Jane Doe 1-100, Correctional Officer; Elizabeth Thompson; Nina Seals; Alphonsia D. Cogdell; John D. Floyd; Macre Crider; Sergeant Kuhn, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-11
Citations: 554 F. App'x 215
Docket Number: No. 13-7121
Parties: Paul E. SEELIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin KELLER; Robert Lewis; Paula Smith; Gibbs; Mark Schuman; James Wiggins; Dr. Bell; M. Crudup, Correctional Officer; McRae, Correctional Officer; John Doe 1-100, Correctional Officer; Jane Doe 1-100, Correctional Officer; Elizabeth Thompson; Nina Seals; Alphonsia D. Cogdell; John D. Floyd; Macre Crider; Sergeant Kuhn, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 215–216

Head Matter:
Paul E. SEELIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin KELLER; Robert Lewis; Paula Smith; Gibbs; Mark Schuman; James Wiggins; Dr. Bell; M. Crudup, Correctional Officer; McRae, Correctional Officer; John Doe 1-100, Correctional Officer; Jane Doe 1-100, Correctional Officer; Elizabeth Thompson; Nina Seals; Alphonsia D. Cogdell; John D. Floyd; Macre Crider; Sergeant Kuhn, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-7121.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 24, 2014.
Decided: Feb. 11, 2014.
Paul E. Seelig, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Francisco Joseph Benzoni, Timothy Power Lehan, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul E. Seelig appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action without prejudice 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. Seelig v. Keeler, No. 5:11-ct-03243-BO (E.D.N.C. June 14, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.