UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JACK EARL BEST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION;
US BUREAU OF PRISONS; RECORDS
                                                                   No. 99-6569
OFFICER, FCI Memphis; RECORDS
OFFICER, FTC Oklahoma; RECORDS
OFFICER, FCI Butner; UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
(CA-98-648-5-BO)

Submitted: August 31, 1999

Decided: September 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jack Earl Best, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Jack Earl Best appeals the district court's order dismiss-
ing his action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Best argues that the United States
Parole Commission illegally arrested and incarcerated him on a parole
violation after his full term expiration date had passed. After recal-
culating Best's sentence, the Bureau of Prisons determined that he
was entitled to additional prior custody credit that resulted in a full
term expiration date of January 15, 1997, two days before the United
State Parole Commission issued the parole violator warrant. In light
of the revised sentence computation, the Bureau of Prisons released
Best on October 3, 1997. Best claims this mistake resulted in addi-
tional incarceration of more than seven months in violation of his
Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
find no reversible error in denying relief on Best's§ 1983 claim. See
Best v. United States Parole Comm., No. CA-98-648-5-BO (E.D.N.C.
Mar. 15, 1999). We modify the district court's order, however, to
reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to Best's right to refile
his claim as one arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).* See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2106 (1994). 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 AS MODIFIED
_________________________________________________________________
*We note that the statute of limitations continues to run on Best's
claim under Bivens.

                     2
