Case Name: Beaumont GEREAU-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON; Captain Janeway; W.R. Hemsley; T. Phillips; S.K. Young, Warden, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-16
Citations: 205 F. App'x 980
Docket Number: No. 06-6779
Parties: Beaumont GEREAU-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON; Captain Janeway; W.R. Hemsley; T. Phillips; S.K. Young, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 980–981

Head Matter:
Beaumont GEREAU-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON; Captain Janeway; W.R. Hemsley; T. Phillips; S.K. Young, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-6779.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 3, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 16, 2006.
Beaumont Gereau-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM Opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Beaumont Gereau-Bey appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). Because Gereau-Bey did not demonstrate to the district court that he exhausted his administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the court's dismissal of the action was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order, which is modified to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice to Gereau-Bey's right to refile once he has exhausted his administrative remedies. 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.