Billy Locklear v. Boyd Bennett, No. 10-6651 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6651 BILLY RAY LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT, Regional Director; DAVID MITCHELL, Facility Administrator; MIKE SLAGLE, 3rd in Command; CHRIS MOODY, Captain; ROBERT GUY, Captain; RODNEY BENNETT, Sergeant; VICTORIA SELLERS, Sergeant; BRENDA ZIMMERMAN, Sergeant; TRAVIS SPARKS, Sergeant; RICHARD JOBE, Sergeant; CAROLYN WINFIELD; KEVIN BENFIELD, Unit Manager; JASON GARLAND, Officer; DONNA GIBSON, Officer; BURTCHFIELD, Officer; BEAVERS, Officer; MARGIE LAWLER, Assistant Superintendent, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00075-GCM) Submitted: January 12, 2011 Decided: February 2, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Ray Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Billy Locklear, a North Carolina prisoner, appeals the district court s order dismissing Locklear s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) failure complaint to remedies. pursuant demonstrate to 42 complete U.S.C. § 1997e exhaustion of (2006) for administrative Locklear represented to the district court that he had not fully exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to one of his claims. Because dismissal of the entire complaint is not required when the prisoner has failed to exhaust some, but not all, of the claims included in his complaint, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 220-24 (2007), we vacate the decision of the district court and remand for further proceedings. motion for appointment of counsel and dispense We deny the with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument will not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.