Case Name: Patrick J. STEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deputy Sergeant HURD; Deputy Sergeant Elkins; Officer Bruton; Officer Haynes; Officer Poe; Officer Batten; Officer Smith, Defendants-Appellees, and Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Department, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-03
Citations: 36 F. App'x 100
Docket Number: No. 02-6254
Parties: Patrick J. STEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deputy Sergeant HURD; Deputy Sergeant Elkins; Officer Bruton; Officer Haynes; Officer Poe; Officer Batten; Officer Smith, Defendants-Appellees, and Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Department, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 100–100

Head Matter:
Patrick J. STEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deputy Sergeant HURD; Deputy Sergeant Elkins; Officer Bruton; Officer Haynes; Officer Poe; Officer Batten; Officer Smith, Defendants-Appellees, and Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Department, Defendant.
No. 02-6254.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2002.
Decided June 3, 2002.
Patrick J. Steen, Appellant Pro Se. Grady Michael Barnhill, Patrick T. Gillen, Scott Douglas MacLatchie, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Patrick J. Steen appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Steen v. Hurd, No. CA-97-544-3-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2002). 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.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) held that "the [Prisoner Litigation Reform Act]'s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong." Id. at 992. Thus, Appellant's claim of excessive force was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.