Court Opinion

ID: 9404372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:14.070713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.713513
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6153      Doc: 10         Filed: 06/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6153

        WARREN MATHEW GIDDINGS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        NURSE GREEN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WILLS; WILLIAM BOHRER, Warden,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-02850-PJM)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Warren Mathew Giddings, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, MARKS,
        O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee
        Green.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6153      Doc: 10        Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Warren Mathew Giddings appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42

        U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant

        Green and dismissed Giddings’ claims against Defendants Wills and Bohrer for failure to

        exhaust his administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

        error. Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order, Giddings v. Green, No. 1:21-cv-

        02850-PJM (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2023), to reflect dismissal of Giddings’ claims against Wills

        and Bohrer without prejudice and affirm the order as modified, see Moss v. Harwood, 19

        F.4th 614, 623 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021). 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 AS MODIFIED

                                                    2