B.j.p. v. THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, (SCDC), By

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6388
B.J.P.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, (SCDC), By and Through
Its Acting Director, Joel Anderson; SCDC ACTING DIRECTOR JOEL
ANDERSON, in his Individual and Official Capacities; SCDC ACTING
ASSISTANT DEP. DIR. JOSEPH STINES, in his Individual and Official
Capacities; SCDC ACTING DEPUTY DIR. DENNIS PATTERSON, in his
Individual and Official Capacities; WARDEN LEVERN COHEN, Ridgeland
Correctional Institution, in his Official and Personal Capacities; ASSOC. WARDEN
CONSONYA WASHINGTON, Ridgeland Correctional Institution, in her Official
and Personal Capacities; ASSOC. WARDEN AUBRAY BAILEY, Ridgeland
Correctional Institution, in his Official and Personal Capacities; MAJOR JOHN
WIGGINS, Ridgeland Correctional Institution, in his Official and Personal
Capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:22-cv-02840-RMG)
Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025
Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
B.J.P., Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, DAVIDSON & WREN, PA,
Columbia, South Carolina; Charles Wesley Harkness, HOLDER PADGETT
LITTLEJOHN & PRICKETT, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Janet Brooks Holmes,
MCKAY FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
B.J.P. appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice B.J.P.’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. B.J.P. v. S.C. Dep’t of
Corrs., No. 1:22-cv-02840-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 19, 2024). 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

-- 3 of 3 --