DICKEY v. Eye Clinic; Officer Will, Defendants. (2020)

William Devon Dickey appeals the district court's order denying his motions for reconsideration of its order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint. Although we grant Dickey's pending motion “to support further assertion of facts and arguments presented in Informal Brief,” we affirm the district court's order.

We review the order under an abuse of discretion standard. Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010). After reviewing the record, we find no reversible error. The district court evaluated Dickey's motions for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found that Dickey presented no evidence of “a clear error of law or a manifest injustice,” Robinson, 599 F.3d at 407, nor “any other reason that justifies relief.” Rule 60(b)(6). Dickey failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing his lawsuit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Although Dickey alleges that the defendants acted in bad faith by agreeing to a resolution and then claiming that Dickey failed to exhaust all administrative remedies, there is no evidence in the record supporting this.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.