Michael Wardlow v. Richard Neely, No. 12-7135 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7135 MICHAEL L. WARDLOW, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD NEELY, Superintendent; LAWRENCE PARSONS, Assist. Superintendent; KORY DALRYMPLE, Assist. Superintendent of Programs; DENNIS MARSHALL, Assist. Unit Mgr.; LISA MARTIN, Captain; LIEUTENANT WHITE; JOHN DOE; TODD PINION, Superintendent/Correctional Administrator; CHRIS BIRD, Nurse; SAMMY HASSAN, Doctor; E. WALRATH, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00596-RJC) Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael L. Wardlow, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, Appellees. Lisa North Yvette Harper, Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael L. Wardlow appeals the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court s exhaustion ruling, based on the record before it. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) (the record on appeal consists only of a certified copy of the docket, the transcripts of any proceedings, and the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court). * Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED * To the extent that Wardlow s amended complaint contended that a prison guard violated the Eighth Amendment while placing Wardlow in segregation, we note that it fails to allege that the guard applied any force maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (noting the factors applicable to determining whether a prison official has acted with the requisitely culpable state of mind). As a result, even if Wardlow exhausted his administrative remedies as to this claim, it was nonetheless properly dismissed. 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.