Court Opinion

ID: 9949956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 21:00:38.845961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:45.976432
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6779      Doc: 18         Filed: 03/11/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6779

        MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        SERGEANT DAVES; JOSEPH PARLIER,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:19-ct-03040-M)

        Submitted: February 12, 2024                                      Decided: March 11, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Matthew James Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6779         Doc: 18       Filed: 03/11/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Matthew James Griffin appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary

        judgment to the Defendants on his second amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and

        denying reconsideration. See Griffin v. Daves, No. 5:19-ct-03040-M (E.D.N.C. Mar. 16,

        2022), ECF No. 134; Griffin v. Daves, No. 5:19-ct-03040-M (E.D.N.C. July 1, 2022), ECF

        No. 143. Lacking the benefit of this Court’s decision in Griffin v. Bryant, 56 F.4th 328

        (4th Cir. 2022), the district court concluded that Griffin had failed to exhaust his available

        administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.

        § 1997e(a). In light of our Bryant decision, we vacate the district court’s rulings and

        remand for further proceedings that are consistent therewith. We deny Griffin’s motion to

        hear the appeal on the original record.

               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.

                                                                     VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                      2