UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RICKY NESBIT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MAXINE WASHINGTON; JOHN WILLIAM
                                                               No. 99-6795
WADE, JR.; JOHN P. ALDERMAN, in
their individual and official
capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
(CA-99-537-AM)

Submitted: August 31, 1999

Decided: October 21, 1999

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges,
and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ricky Nesbit, Appellant Pro Se.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Ricky Nesbit, appeals the district court's order dismiss-
ing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999)
complaint. After reviewing the record and the district court's opinion,
we vacate and remand for further consideration.

Although Nesbit styled his action as one arising under § 1983, the
district court concluded that Nesbit sought relief available only under
28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). The district court
thereupon dismissed the action without prejudice because Nesbit had
not exhausted the appropriate remedies available to him in state court.
After reviewing the record, we find that Nesbit properly filed his
complaint as a § 1983 action because he challenged the method of
decision making used by the parole board, not the board's denial of
relief to him. See Strader v. Troy, 571 F.2d 1263, 1269 (4th Cir.
1978); see also Roller v. Cavanaugh, 984 F.2d 120, 122 (4th Cir.
1993). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and
remand for the district court to consider the merits of Nesbit's claims.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                    2
