UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JACK EARL BEST, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; US BUREAU OF PRISONS; RECORDS No. 99-6569 OFFICER, FCI Memphis; RECORDS OFFICER, FTC Oklahoma; RECORDS OFFICER, FCI Butner; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-648-5-BO)

Submitted: August 31, 1999

Decided: September 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jack Earl Best, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Jack Earl Best appeals the district court's order dismiss- ing his action under

(West Supp. 1999) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Best argues that the United States Parole Commission illegally arrested and incarcerated him on a parole violation after his full term expiration date had passed. After recal- culating Best's sentence, the Bureau of Prisons determined that he was entitled to additional prior custody credit that resulted in a full term expiration date of January 15, 1997, two days before the United State Parole Commission issued the parole violator warrant. In light of the revised sentence computation, the Bureau of Prisons released Best on October 3, 1997. Best claims this mistake resulted in addi- tional incarceration of more than seven months in violation of his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error in denying relief on Best's§ 1983 claim. See Best v. United States Parole Comm., No. CA-98-648-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 1999). We modify the district court's order, however, to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to Best's right to refile his claim as one arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971).* See

(1994). 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 AS MODIFIED _________________________________________________________________ *We note that the statute of limitations continues to run on Best's claim under Bivens.

2