UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOHN DOUGLAS ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 96-6674
HOLMAN C. GOSSETT, JR.; CHARLIE
SANDERS; WILLIAM E. GUNN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-96-783-7-20AK)
Submitted: October 31, 1996
Decided: November 27, 1996
Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
John Douglas Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
John D. Alexander appeals from the district court's order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Our review of the
record and the district court's opinion discloses that the district court
correctly determined that exhaustion of state remedies was required.
Although the general rule is that the case should be dismissed
rather than retained on the district court's docket pending exhaustion
of state remedies, Slayton v. Smith, 404 U.S. 53, 54 (1971), a civil
rights claim should be retained on the docket if dismissal would
create a statute of limitations problem. Hamlin v. Warren, 664 F.2d
29, 32 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 911 (1982). We find that
Appellant's claim that Defendant Gunn improperly calculated his
parole eligibility has already accrued, and therefore, exhaustion of
remedies may result in a running of the statute of limitations. Appel-
lant's remaining claims have not yet accrued and, therefore, do not
face a similar fate. See Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178,
183 (4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, to preserve any timely § 1983 claim Appellant may
have regarding his parole eligibility, we vacate the portion of the dis-
trict court's order dismissing this claim against Gunn and remand to
the district court with instructions to retain Appellant's case on its
docket in abeyance until Appellant has exhausted his state remedies.
We affirm the dismissal without prejudice of the remainder of Appel-
lant's claims. 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
2
Alexander v. Gossett
Combined Opinion