OPINION

S.K. Young and A.P. Harvey, defendants in a 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action, appeal from the magistrate judge’s order requiring them to file responsive pleadings and the district court’s order granting their motion to dismiss for plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). Young and Harvey complain that they have wasted resources in complying with the court’s request, which has denied them due process. They have also charged the district court with a “continued unwillingness to give full effect to § 1997e(a).”

In order for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over an action, the dispute must satisfy the case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Constitution. White v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 913 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 1990). A case or controversy exists if the dispute is “definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-41, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). The controversy must be curable by specific relief through a conclusive decree, and the court may not issue what amounts to an advisory opinion on what the law would be under a hypothetical set of facts. Id.

Here, Young and Harvey ask this Court to issue an advisory opinion informing the district court as to how it should proceed in future cases. This request fails to state a justiciable case or controversy. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED