Case Name: Howell W. WOLTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeremy NASH, individually and in his official capacity; Brigette Seafus, individually and in official capacity; Joel Ziebler, individually and in his official capacity and unnamed defendants, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-25
Citations: 474 F. App'x 270
Docket Number: No. 12-6275
Parties: Howell W. WOLTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeremy NASH, individually and in his official capacity; Brigette Seafus, individually and in official capacity; Joel Ziebler, individually and in his official capacity and unnamed defendants, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 270–270

Head Matter:
Howell W. WOLTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeremy NASH, individually and in his official capacity; Brigette Seafus, individually and in official capacity; Joel Ziebler, individually and in his official capacity and unnamed defendants, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 12-6275.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2012.
Decided: June 25, 2012.
Howell W. Woltz, Appellant Pro Se. J. Christopher Krivonyak, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Howell W. Woltz appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint, which was filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), for failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not err in reaching this dispositive conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Woltz v. Nash, No. 5:11-cv-00058, 2012 WL 314173 (S.D.W.Va. Feb. 1, 2012). 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.