
    John B. RUFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden MCGARRITTY, Greenville State Prison; Warden Millard, Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual Capacity); Warden Davis, Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual capacity); Warden Trent, Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual Capacity); Unit Manager Everette, Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual Capacity); Rufus Flemings, Warden, Regional Director, State Grievance (Official/Individual Capacity); Lieutenant Tinsley, Internal Affairs, Virginia State Department of Corrections; Officer Autry, Inmate Hearing Officer, Greenville State Prison (Official/Individual Capacity); Officer Tillery, Grievance Coordinator (Official/Individual Capacity); Doctor Laybourne, Greenville Correctional (Official/Individual Capacity); Doctor Bradley, Greenville Correctional (Official/Individual Capacity), Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-7071.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 19, 2004.
    Decided: Dec. 1, 2004.
    John B. Ruffin, Appellant pro se.
    Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

John B. Ruffin appeals the district court order dismissing all of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claims, except that he was held in segregation without due process, for failure to exhaust. Ruffin further appeals the district court order dismissing his § 1983 claim that he was held in segregation without due process as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We note that even if Ruffin’s claim that he was denied access to his legal materials was exhausted, it is also frivolous under § 1915A(b)(l) because he failed to demonstrate injury or prejudice caused by his inability to obtain those materials. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). 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  