Case Name: Larry Lamont BUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROADWATER, Officer; Sergeant Coleman; Michaels, Lieutenant; Shockey, Case Manager, Mr.; Miller, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-11
Citations: 182 F. App'x 167
Docket Number: No. 05-7821
Parties: Larry Lamont BUSH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BROADWATER, Officer; Sergeant Coleman; Michaels, Lieutenant; Shockey, Case Manager, Mr.; Miller, Correctional Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 167–167

Head Matter:
Larry Lamont BUSH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BROADWATER, Officer; Sergeant Coleman; Michaels, Lieutenant; Shockey, Case Manager, Mr.; Miller, Correctional Officer, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-7821.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2006.
Decided: May 11, 2006.
Larry Lamont Bush, Appellant pro se. Glenn William Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, 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Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Lamont Bush appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). Because Bush did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted 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 Bush'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.