Case Name: Austin Chidi NWAKUDU-NWOSU Appellant, v. JENKINS, Lieutenant; Dragula, Correctional Officer; Pissot, Correctional Officer; Zimmerman, Correctional Officer; John Doe, Correction Officer; James Roe; Frank Loe; Andrea Bordman; Phillip A. Harden; John M. Hurley, Each and Every Defendant is Liable in their Official Capacity, and Under their Personal Capacity Acting Under Color of the Law
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-07
Citations: 29 F. App'x 847
Docket Number: No. 98-5005
Parties: Austin Chidi NWAKUDU-NWOSU Appellant, v. JENKINS, Lieutenant; Dragula, Correctional Officer; Pissot, Correctional Officer; Zimmerman, Correctional Officer; John Doe, Correction Officer; James Roe; Frank Loe; Andrea Bordman; Phillip A. Harden; John M. Hurley, Each and Every Defendant is Liable in their Official Capacity, and Under their Personal Capacity Acting Under Color of the Law.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 29
Pages: 847–848

Head Matter:
Austin Chidi NWAKUDU-NWOSU Appellant, v. JENKINS, Lieutenant; Dragula, Correctional Officer; Pissot, Correctional Officer; Zimmerman, Correctional Officer; John Doe, Correction Officer; James Roe; Frank Loe; Andrea Bordman; Phillip A. Harden; John M. Hurley, Each and Every Defendant is Liable in their Official Capacity, and Under their Personal Capacity Acting Under Color of the Law.
No. 98-5005.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Jan. 24, 2002.
Decided Feb. 7, 2002.
Before NYGAARD, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, and SLEET, District Judge.
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, United States District Judge for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge.
This appeal raises the following issues:
1. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that a Section 1983 action based upon use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment is a claim "with respect to prison conditions" which requires the exhaustion of remedies under Section 1997e(a).
2. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the administrative remedies "available" to appellant had to be exhausted prior to filing suit, despite the fact that the remedies that were available did not provide for the relief appellant sought.
We resolved both of these issues against the appellant's position in Booth v. Churner, 206 F.3d 289 (3d Cir.2000). Our resolution of the second of these issues in Booth was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 532 U.S. 731, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (May 29, 2001).
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.