UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7096

ROBERT DALE STRICKLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF MCCABE, Norfolk City Jail; MAJOR CAMACHO, Chief Corrections Officer, Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN KOCEJA, Assistant Correc- tions Officer, Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN STOCKS, Chief Records Officer, Norfolk City Jail; LIEUTENANT BLUNT, Team Commander, Norfolk City Jail; SERGEANT WHITE, Assistant Team Commander, Norfolk City Jail; DEPUTY ORTIZ, Floor Deputy, Floor Supervisor, Norfolk City Jail; DEPUTY WALSH, Law Library Super- visor, Norfolk City Jail; MR. CRADOCK, Chief Classification Officer Norfolk City Jail; MARLO COPELAND, Supervisor, Inmate Funds, Inmate Canteen; SHERIFF NEWHART, Chesapeake City Jail; CAPTAIN CHESSOM, Chief Correctional Officer; SERGEANT HOEKLINE, Dayshift Sergeant; DEPUTY MILAN, Floor Deputy; DEPUTY DUNN; SERGEANT KIRBY, Dayshift Sergeant; MR. KITE, Chief Classification, Chesapeake City Jail; RON ANGELONE, Director, Department of Correc- tions; PATRICK GURNEY, Manager, Classification and Research, DOC; LINDA PITTMAN, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor; JOHN R. DEWAN, Superintendent, Western Tide- water Regional Jail (W.T.R.J.); CAPTAIN FAULK, Chief of Security, W.T.R.J.; MR. ELLEY, Law Library Supervisor, W.T.R.J.; MR. WESTMINIS- TER, Head of the Medical Department, W.T.R.J.; MIKE DISTEL, Chief Classification Officer, W.T.R.J.,

Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-126-2)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Dale Strickler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Robert Dale Strickler appeals the district court's order dis-

missing his

(1994) complaint without prejudice for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court

properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42

U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 1997). Because Appellant did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administra-

tive remedies or that such remedies were not available, the court's

dismissal of the action without prejudice was not an abuse of dis-

cretion. We note that Strickler's claim seeking transfer to a state facility is not subject to the exhaustion requirement of § 1997e as

it involves a condition of confinement. Nonetheless, we conclude

that the claim was properly dismissed because Strickler has no

liberty interest in such transfer. See Sandin v. Conner,

(1995). We therefore affirm the district court's order. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3