SORRICK v. MANNING (2018)

Kevin Johnathan Sorrick appeals the district court's order denying numerous motions and granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sorrick's motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.^* Sorrick v. Manning, No. 8:16-cv-00709-TDC, 2017 WL 3668755 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2017). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Sorrick argues on appeal that administrative remedies were not available, and therefore the district court should not have dismissed certain claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, the record demonstrates that Sorrick was able to exhaust remedies for other claims, and effective remedies were similarly available for the unexhausted claims. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that proper administrative exhaustion requires compliance with agency deadlines and key procedural rules); Ross v. Blake, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (clarifying when administrative remedies are deemed unavailable).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.