
    Michael McEVILY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kim ORDILE; Kim Austin; Daryl Payne; J.D. Terry; Scott Bush, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-6419.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 25, 2002.
    Decided Aug. 8, 2002.
    Michael McEvily, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael McEvily appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2002) complaint. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court prematurely dismissed McEvily’s claim that his prison’s substance abuse treatment program violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. We have previously held that standing to assert an Establishment Clause claim requires direct contact with the offending practice, but that a plaintiffs change in conduct so as to avoid the offensive practice does not serve to negate standing. Suhre v. Haywood County, 131 F.3d 1083, 1086-88 (4th Cir.1997); cf. Taylor v. Rogers, 781 F.2d 1047, 1048 n. 1 (4th Cir.1986) (noting that transfer of inmate moots only claims for declatory and injunctive relief). On the present record, we are unable to conclude that the district court correctly found that McEvily lacked standing to assert this claim.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion dismissing McEvily’s remaining claims and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny McEvily’s motion for appointment of counsel, vacate the district court’s order dismissing McEvily’s Establishment Clause claim, and remand for further proceedings on that claim, and affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing McEvily’s remaining claims on the reasoning of the district court. See McEvily v. Ordile, No. CA-01-297-7 (W.D.Va. June 13, 2001; Jan. 31, 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 IN PART AND VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.  