Court Opinion

ID: 9394017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 21:01:08.360325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.794686
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6253      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/10/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-6253

        ARYEE HENDERSON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        LASHAWN PEEPLES, Associate Warden; GREGORY WASHINGTON, Associate
        Warden; JAMES PARRISH, Associate Warden; MICHAEL STEPHAN, Warden; MS.
        GASQUE, Grievance Coordinator,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:19-cv-01861-BHH)

        Submitted: April 14, 2023                                          Decided: May 10, 2023

        Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Aryee Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Brian L. Craven, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY
        FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6253      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/10/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Aryee Henderson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation and granting summary judgment to Defendants on Henderson’s 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court correctly

        determined that Henderson failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to

        filing his complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Henderson v.

        Peeples, No. 4:19-cv-01861-BHH (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 2020).            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

                                                    2