Case Name: Lamond LATNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony PARKER, Chief of Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-28
Citations: 707 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 17-7001
Parties: Lamond LATNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony PARKER, Chief of Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Lamond LATNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony PARKER, Chief of Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-7001
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 21, 2017
Decided: December 28, 2017
Lamond Latney, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon Matheson, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamond Latney appeals the district court's order granting Defendant Anthony Parker's motion for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and dismissing the action due to Latney s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Although Latney argues that his institutional complaint was in fact timely and that further remedies were unavailable, the district court properly rejected those assertions. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that proper administrative exhaustion requires compliance with agency deadlines and key procedural rules); Ross v. Blake, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (clarifjdng when administrative remedies are deemed unavailable). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Latney v. Parker, No. 2:17-cv-00024-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va. July 20, 2017). We deny Latney's motion to appoint counsel. 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