Opinion
No. 17-7291
04-02-2018
KEVIN JOHNATHAN SORRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOCTOR LAWRENCE MANNING; DOCTOR JASON CLEM; DOCTOR PAUL MATERA; SARA JENKINS, Medical Department Manager/Supervisor Registered Nurse; REGISTERED NURSE JENNIFER PATTERSON; NANCY BEALER, Registered Nurse; PHYSICIANS ASSISTANT PETER STANFORD; SECRETARY STEPHEN MOYER; WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN; LIEUTENANT GENESIS COPELAND; LIEUTENANT EVAN WARD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SHANIKA GUSTUS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BERNARDO HANDY; UNKNOWN TRANSPORTATION OFFICER 1; UNKNOWN TRANSPORTATION OFFICER 2; WEXFORD UTILIZATION REVIEW/MANAGEMENT COLLEGIAL; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES INC., Defendants - Appellees.
Kevin Johnathan Sorrick, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Michael Balaban, Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland; Thomas E. Dernoga, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00709-TDC) Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Johnathan Sorrick, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Michael Balaban, Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland; Thomas E. Dernoga, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Kevin Johnathan Sorrick appeals the district court's order denying numerous motions and granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Sorrick's motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sorrick v. Manning, No. 8:16-cv-00709-TDC (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2017). 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.
Sorrick argues on appeal that administrative remedies were not available, and therefore the district court should not have dismissed certain claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, the record demonstrates that Sorrick was able to exhaust remedies for other claims, and effective remedies were similarly available for the unexhausted claims. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (holding that proper administrative exhaustion requires compliance with agency deadlines and key procedural rules); Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016) (clarifying when administrative remedies are deemed unavailable). --------
AFFIRMED