UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 97-6013

SERGEANT SANTIAGO; MS. WOOD,

Property Control; LIEUTENANT COOK,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.

(CA-96-254-R)

Submitted: May 20, 1997

Decided: June 3, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Fredrick Lynwood Foley, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Fredrick Lynwood Foley, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court's dismissal without prejudice of his complaint filed under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). Foley's complaint was dismissed for failure to

comply with the court's orders that Foley provide evidence of exhaustion of his administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e

(West Supp. 1997). Foley alleged in his § 1983 complaint that one of

the Defendants removed a gold cross from his cell while he was in

isolation. He pursued his grievance against that Defendant through the

first of two administrative levels, but he did not assert in his grievance

any claims against the remaining Defendants.

The district court ordered Foley to provide evidence of exhaustion

of his administrative remedies or an explanation of why he could not

exhaust. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e (West Supp. 1997). Foley submitted a pleading stating that he had been transferred to another prison

and was unable to exhaust. Nevertheless, the district court dismissed

Foley's complaint for failure to comply with its orders regarding

exhaustion of his administrative remedies.

Because Foley's transfer left him with no administrative remedy,

the district court may have abused its discretion in dismissing for failure to exhaust under § 1997e. However, upon review of the merits of

Foley's § 1983 complaint, we find that he has failed to state a cognizable claim. When the deprivation of a prisoner's personal property

results from a random, unauthorized act of a state employee, procedural due process is satisfied if there is an adequate state postdeprivation remedy available.1 Here, the Virginia Tort Claims Act

provides an adequate state remedy for conversion of an inmate's personal property.2 Because there is an adequate state remedy, we find

that Foley's complaint lacks merit. We affirm on that basis. See

generally 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(c)(2). We dispense with oral argument

_________________________________________________________________

1 See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533-34 (1984).

2 See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195-3 (Michie 1992 & Supp. 1997);

Wadhams v. Procunier, 772 F.2d 75, 78 (4th Cir. 1985).

 2
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