Case Name: Demetrius HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden HAYNES; A.W. Gill; Warden Driver; Capt. Oddo; Lt. Clemens; Lt. Gifford; Lt. Trait; C.O. Spotlan; Foster; C.O. Morgan; Counselor Morrero; Etris, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-04
Citations: 591 F. App'x 223
Docket Number: No. 14-7325
Parties: Demetrius HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden HAYNES; A.W. Gill; Warden Driver; Capt. Oddo; Lt. Clemens; Lt. Gifford; Lt. Trait; C.O. Spotlan; Foster; C.O. Morgan; Counselor Morrero; Etris, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 591
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
Demetrius HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden HAYNES; A.W. Gill; Warden Driver; Capt. Oddo; Lt. Clemens; Lt. Gifford; Lt. Trait; C.O. Spotlan; Foster; C.O. Morgan; Counselor Morrero; Etris, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7325.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 23, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 4, 2015.
Demetrius Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Betsy C. Jividen, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In December 2006, Demetrius Hill, a federal inmate incarcerated during the relevant period at United States Penitentiary-Hazelton, filed a civil action 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), alleging various prison employees violated his First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights by placing him in the Special Housing Unit without an incident report and under conditions that were so unsanitary and deplorable that they threatened his health and well-being. He further asserted that because he made complaints, the staff threatened to kill him and' refused him the materials necessary to file administrative remedies. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and dismissed Hill's complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
On appeal, we vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for a determination whether the grievance procedure was "available" to Hill within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2012), namely, whether Defendants hindered Hill's ability to exhaust administrative remedies. Hill v. Haynes, 380 Fed.Appx. 268 (4th Cir.2010) (No. 08-7244). On remand, the matter was referred to a magis-. trate judge, who held a three-day eviden-tiary hearing on this issue. In a detailed and thorough report, the magistrate judge concluded that prison officials did not hinder Hill's ability to exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court accepted the recommendation and granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hill v. Haynes, No. 3:06-cv-00136-GMG-JSK (ND.W.Va. Aug. 22, 2014). 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.