Case Name: Arthur Lee HAIRSTON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; Charles Samuels, Director F.B.O.P.; Harrell Watts, National Inmate Appeals; C. Eichenlaub, Regional Director; Eric Wilson, Warden; Katherine Laybourn, Dr.; Paul Kelly, Case Manager Coordinator; Angela Tomlinson, Camp Unit Manager, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-22
Citations: 572 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 13-7907
Parties: Arthur Lee HAIRSTON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; Charles Samuels, Director F.B.O.P.; Harrell Watts, National Inmate Appeals; C. Eichenlaub, Regional Director; Eric Wilson, Warden; Katherine Laybourn, Dr.; Paul Kelly, Case Manager Coordinator; Angela Tomlinson, Camp Unit Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 572
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
Arthur Lee HAIRSTON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; Charles Samuels, Director F.B.O.P.; Harrell Watts, National Inmate Appeals; C. Eichenlaub, Regional Director; Eric Wilson, Warden; Katherine Laybourn, Dr.; Paul Kelly, Case Manager Coordinator; Angela Tomlinson, Camp Unit Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-7907.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2014.
Decided: May 22, 2014.
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed as modified by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., appeals from the district court's order dismissing his complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012). We have reviewed the complaint, as well as Hairston's informal brief and the district court record, and we conclude that the dismissal was proper. See Hairston v. Holder, No. 1:13-cv-00682-TSE-IDD, 2013 WL 5963003 (E.D.Va. Nov. 7, 2013). However, we modify the district court's order to show that the dismissal was without prejudice to Hairston's refiling his complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.