Case Name: Jay NEWTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Regional Director; D.M. Vaughan, Warden; S.A. Tinsley, Investigator; Walker, Investigator; D. Saunders, Hearing Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-23
Citations: 311 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 08-7274
Parties: Jay NEWTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Regional Director; D.M. Vaughan, Warden; S.A. Tinsley, Investigator; Walker, Investigator; D. Saunders, Hearing Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 311
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
Jay NEWTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Regional Director; D.M. Vaughan, Warden; S.A. Tinsley, Investigator; Walker, Investigator; D. Saunders, Hearing Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-7274.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 22, 2009.
Decided: Feb. 23, 2009.
Jay Newton, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jay Newton appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Newton v. Washington, No. 1:08-cv-00599-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. June 24, 2008). We 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.
We specifically note that Newton's claim that he is excused from administratively grieving his claims based on futility is without merit. See Booth v. Chumer, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).