UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7071

JOHN B. RUFFIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN MCGARRITTY, Greenville State Prison; WARDEN MILLARD, Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual Capacity); WARDEN DAVIS, Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual capacity); WARDEN TRENT, Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual Capacity); UNIT MANAGER EVERETTE, Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual Capacity); RUFUS FLEMINGS, Warden, Regional Director, State Grievance (Official/Individual Capacity); LIEUTENANT TINSLEY, Internal Affairs, Virginia State Department of Corrections; OFFICER AUTRY, Inmate Hearing Officer, Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual Capacity); OFFICER TILLERY, Grievance Coordinator (Official/Individual Capacity); DOCTOR LAYBOURNE, Greensville Correctional (Official/Individual Capacity); DOCTOR BRADLEY, Greensville Correctional (Official/ Individual Capacity),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-266-2)

Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: December 1, 2004 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John B. Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

John B. Ruffin appeals the district court order

dismissing all of his

(2000) claims, except that

he was held in segregation without due process, for failure to

exhaust. Ruffin further appeals the district court order

dismissing his § 1983 claim that he was held in segregation without

due process as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. We note that even if Ruffin’s claim that he

was denied access to his legal materials was exhausted, it is also

frivolous under § 1915A(b)(1) because he failed to demonstrate

injury or prejudice caused by his inability to obtain those

materials. See Lewis v. Casey,

(1996). 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 -