UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6330
CLYDE BLANKENSHIP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ROGER HUTCHINGS; DAVID T. FLAHERTY; THE CALD-
WELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District
Judge. (CA-96-167-5-MU)
Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 6, 1998
Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clyde Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Clyde Blankenship appeals the district court’s order dismiss-
ing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) complaint for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court
properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42
U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 1998). Because Blankenship did not
demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted admin-
istrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the
court’s dismissal of the action was not an abuse of discretion. We
note that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate in this case
because the claims Blankenship seeks to assert are barred by the
applicable limitations period. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(5) (Supp.
1997); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-68 (1985). Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Blankenship
v. Hutchings, No. CA-96-167-5-MU (W.D. N.C. Jan. 21, 1998). We deny
Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2