UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7756
AARON FRENCH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN; JOHN ROWLEY; J. LOIBEL; DAN WATSON, Lieutenant;
WARNER, Lieutenant; WHETSTONE, Officer; SPIKER, Officer;
RYAN, Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-02299-CCB)
Submitted: August 3, 2011 Decided: August 12, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron French, Appellant Pro Se. Nichole Cherie Gatewood, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Little French, a Maryland state prisoner,
brought a civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) against
prison staff. The district court dismissed the action, finding
that French failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
French appeals the district court’s orders granting summary
judgment and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
A prisoner must properly exhaust available
administrative remedies prior to filing a § 1983 action
concerning prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2006);
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining that
exhaustion requires using every step available and complying
with relevant procedural requirements). French contended in the
district court that he could not complete the administrative
review process because prison staff did not respond to his
grievances. Maryland Division of Correction Directive 185-002
(“DCD 185-002”) provides, however, that a prisoner should treat
a failure to respond within thirty days as a denial and file an
appeal to the next level. Assuming, as French contended, that
he received no response to his grievances, under DCD 185-002,
and based on the dates of his initial grievance and the filing
of the complaint in this action, he could not have completed the
grievance process before he filed suit in the district court.
2
Thus, the district court properly concluded that French failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
granting summary judgment but modify the dismissal to be without
prejudice to French’s right to refile once exhaustion is
complete. We also conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying French’s motion for
reconsideration. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599
F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard for review of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion). 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.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
3