Case Name: Karim Abdul AKBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT, Director of North Carolina Prisons; Henry V. Barnett, Wake County Superior Court Judge; Karl Nudsen, District Attorney; Wake County Court Appointed Attorney, "My Court Appointed Attorney"; Appellate Defender, Wake County Appellate Defender; North Carolina Parole Commission, Division of North Carolina Prison Grievance Commission; North Carolina Court of Appeals; NC Supreme Court, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-17
Citations: 57 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 03-6078
Parties: Karim Abdul AKBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT, Director of North Carolina Prisons; Henry V. Barnett, Wake County Superior Court Judge; Karl Nudsen, District Attorney; Wake County Court Appointed Attorney, “My Court Appointed Attorney”; Appellate Defender, Wake County Appellate Defender; North Carolina Parole Commission, Division of North Carolina Prison Grievance Commission; North Carolina Court of Appeals; NC Supreme Court, Defendants-Appel-lees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 57
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
Karim Abdul AKBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT, Director of North Carolina Prisons; Henry V. Barnett, Wake County Superior Court Judge; Karl Nudsen, District Attorney; Wake County Court Appointed Attorney, “My Court Appointed Attorney”; Appellate Defender, Wake County Appellate Defender; North Carolina Parole Commission, Division of North Carolina Prison Grievance Commission; North Carolina Court of Appeals; NC Supreme Court, Defendants-Appel-lees.
No. 03-6078.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2003.
Decided March 17, 2003.
Karim Abdul Akbar, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Karim Abdul Akbar appeals the district court's orders dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. However, Akbar's claims may be cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, after satisfying the exhaustion requirement. We do not comment on the merits of such an action. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court with the modification that the dismissal is without prejudice. See Akbar v. Bennett, No. CA-02-696-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 2002 & filed Nov. 19, 2002; entered Nov. 20, 2002). 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.