Case Name: Bobby Ray GRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carey WINDERS; Fane Greenfield, Major; Deputy Biggins; Keith Hartzog, Detective Sergeant; Carl E. Lancaster, Lieutenant; Kenneth Lupton, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-25
Citations: 511 F. App'x 242
Docket Number: No. 12-7752
Parties: Bobby Ray GRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carey WINDERS; Fane Greenfield, Major; Deputy Biggins; Keith Hartzog, Detective Sergeant; Carl E. Lancaster, Lieutenant; Kenneth Lupton, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 242–242

Head Matter:
Bobby Ray GRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carey WINDERS; Fane Greenfield, Major; Deputy Biggins; Keith Hartzog, Detective Sergeant; Carl E. Lancaster, Lieutenant; Kenneth Lupton, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-7752.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 20, 2013.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2013.
Bobby Ray Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Derrenbacher, Patterson Dilthey, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Ray Grady appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Grady v. Winders, No. 5:11-ct-03257-BO, 2012 WL 4753313 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 4, 2012). In addition, we decline to consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). Finally, we note that certain of Grady's claims appear to be prematurely filed. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). However, because the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, Grady is not barred from refiling his complaint if he can cure the defects in exhaustion on the claims required to be exhausted or once his claims have actually accrued under Heck. 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.