Case Name: Daniel E. FELIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.V. BEALE, Warden, DFCC; Wayne Brown, Operations Officer; E.B. Wright, Assistant Warden; Lieutenant Artis; Officer Lewis; Captain Jones, Defendants-Appellees, and John DOE, D.C.O. Employees; Mark Convertino; Steve Whisenant, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 04-6650
Parties: Daniel E. FELIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.V. BEALE, Warden, DFCC; Wayne Brown, Operations Officer; E.B. Wright, Assistant Warden; Lieutenant Artis; Officer Lewis; Captain Jones, Defendants-Appellees, and John DOE, D.C.O. Employees; Mark Convertino; Steve Whisenant, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
Daniel E. FELIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.V. BEALE, Warden, DFCC; Wayne Brown, Operations Officer; E.B. Wright, Assistant Warden; Lieutenant Artis; Officer Lewis; Captain Jones, Defendants-Appellees, and John DOE, D.C.O. Employees; Mark Convertino; Steve Whisenant, Defendants.
No. 04-6650.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 20, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 17, 2004.
Daniel E. Felix, Appellant pro se.
Joel Christopher Hoppe, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel E. Felix filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action in the district court, complaining of certain conditions of his confinement at Deerfield Correctional Center in Virginia. The district court dismissed the action after concluding that Felix failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). On appeal, Felix challenges this holding.
We conclude that Felix has sufficiently demonstrated his exhaustion of administrative remedies. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings. 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.
REVERSED