
    Robert C. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Christopher B. EPPS, Commissioner of Mississippi Department of Corrections; Ronald King, Superintendent; Glenn Spann, Administrator, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-61097
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 19, 2008.
    Robert Charles Jones, Leakesville, MS, pro se.
    John Lewis Clay, Office of The Attorney General for The State of Mississippi, Leonard Charlton Vincent, Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before GARWOOD, GARZA and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert C. Jones, Mississippi prisoner # R5912, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that he was exposed to inhumane conditions of confinement during his nine-month stint in the South Mississippi Correctional Institution II Lockdown Unit. He sought injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. The magistrate judge (MJ) dismissed the complaint with prejudice following an omnibus hearing on Jones’s claims.

Jones argues that the MJ erred in dismissing his case as moot. The MJ dismissed only Jones’s request for injunctive relief as moot because Jones was no longer housed in the Lockdown Unit. Jones has not demonstrated a reasonable expectation that he will once again be imprisoned in the Lockdown Unit and subjected to the same conditions. Thus, despite Jones’s contention to the contrary, his case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17-18, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998).

Jones argues that the MJ erred in dismissing his complaint on the grounds that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The MJ’s dismissal in this regard relied on Jones’s statements made at the omnibus hearing. We cannot effectively review this issue because Jones has failed to provide a transcript of the hearing. We therefore dismiss Jones’s appeal. Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir.1990).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under die limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     