Court Opinion

ID: 554476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-08-23 10:09:09+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:32.234112
License: Public Domain

923 F.2d 850Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.Rose WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Shirley BURTON, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 90-7398.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 7, 1991.Decided Jan. 28, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Richard L. Williams, District Judge.  (CA-90-325)
Rose White, appellant pro se.
E.D.Va.
DISMISSED.
Before DONALD RUSSELL, WIDENER and K.K. HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

1
Rose White appeals the district court's order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to demonstrate administrative exhaustion.  Acting pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, the district court ordered appellant to exhaust administrative remedies and to advise the court within 100 days of the result of the administrative proceedings.*   It warned appellant that failure to comply with its order would result in dismissal of the action.  The district court dismissed the case without prejudice after appellant failed to demonstrate exhaustion despite clarification of the showing required and extensions of time within which to comply.

2
The district court could properly require exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e.  Its dismissal of the action, without prejudice, when appellant failed to comply with its order was not an abuse of discretion.  We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.  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.

3
DISMISSED.

*
 The exhaustion order related to appellant's third claim.  Her first two claims were dismissed as duplicative because they were the subject of a separate complaint