# Masada v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 3, 2004 · 98 F. App'x 262

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013385

## Case

- **Full name:** El Shaddai MASADA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Bonnie Burelle BROWN, Defendant—Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 3, 2004
- **Citations:** 98 F. App'x 262
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Widener, Michael, King
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013385

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6286

EL SHADDAI MASADA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BONNIE BURELLE BROWN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-2779-8-17BI)

Submitted: May 27, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

El Shaddai Masada, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

El Shaddai Masada appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice for failure

to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly

required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a) (2000). Because Masada did not demonstrate to the

district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or

that such remedies were not available, the court’s dismissal of the

action, without prejudice, was not an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013385. Public record. Not legal advice.