USCA4 Appeal: 24-6388 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6388 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6388 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 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

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