The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-6813•Larry Williams v. Scott B. Lewis
20-6813Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 29, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6813
LARRY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCOTT B. LEWIS; SUSAN M. DUFFY; FELICIA OGUNSILE; ADAM T.
BRADBURN; CAPTAIN LANE; OFFICER BUTLER, Unit Counselor; WARDEN
GLAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00182-MGL)
Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 29, 2020
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Todd Smith, LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH,
LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Williams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge, dismissing Williams’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Williams’ remaining state law claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Lewis,
No. 5:19-cv-00182-MGL (D.S.C. May 19, 2020). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.