Frederick Banks v. Dr. Allissa Marquez , 694 F. App'x 159 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6387
    FREDERICK BANKS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DR. ALLISSA MARQUEZ; DR. LOGAN GRADDY; DR. CAHILL; MARK
    HORNAK; U.S. DISTRICT COURT, Western District of Pennsylvania; JEFF
    SESSIONS; DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF PRISONS; ADRIAN ROE; ROBERT
    CESSAR; SOO SONG,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:17-ct-03064-F)
    Submitted: July 27, 2017                                          Decided: August 1, 2017
    Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frederick Hamilton Banks, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Frederick Banks appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
    what the district court construed as a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2012) petition. In his petition,
    Banks sought immediate release from custody or, in the least, that his competency
    proceedings be conducted. Banks explicitly admitted in his petition that he failed to
    exhaust his administrative remedies and, thus, we discern no error in the district court’s
    decision to sua sponte dismiss Banks’ petition for failure to administratively exhaust. See
    Custis v. Davis, 
    851 F.3d 358
    , 361-63 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding that a court may sua
    sponte dismiss an inmate’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies only
    if failure to exhaust is apparent on the face of the complaint and the district court did not
    first require the inmate to substantiate exhaustion).      Accordingly, we grant Banks’
    application to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6387

Citation Numbers: 694 F. App'x 159

Filed Date: 8/1/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023