UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THEODORE C. KARIOTIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PARRIS N. GLENDENING, as Governor
of the State of Maryland, in his
official capacity; DONALD N.
LANGENBERG, as Chancellor of the
University System of Maryland, in
his official capacity; ROBERT E.
MYERS, as interim President of the
University of Maryland University
College, in his official capacity; T.
                                               No. 00-1398
BENJAMIN MASSEY, former President
of the University of Maryland
University College, in his personal
capacity; PAUL HAMLIN, former
Dean of the University of Maryland
University College, in his personal
capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA;
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
MARYLAND, INC.,
Amici Curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-1982-WMN)

Submitted: August 18, 2000

Decided: September 6, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Theodore C. Kariotis, Appellant Pro Se. Sally Lotz Swann, Assistant
General Counsel, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Dwight Hall
Sullivan, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MARY-
LAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Arthur B. Spitzer, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Theodore C. Kariotis appeals from the district court's order dis-
missing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint in
which he alleged that his position as Director of Economics at the
University of Maryland University College was eliminated due to his
vocal and public opposition to the college's announced plan to elimi-
nate all full-time faculty and to employ only adjunct faculty members.
The district court determined that Kariotis' speech was in his personal
interest as an employee, rather than as a citizen on a matter of public
concern, and therefore concluded that the speech was not protected
under the First Amendment. See Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391
U.S. 563, 568 (1968) (announcing balancing test). Accepting the fac-
tual allegations in the complaint as true and affording Kariotis the
benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those alle-
gations, see Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.

                    2
1993), we find no support in the record for the conclusion that Kario-
tis' position--or that of any other academic director--would have
been affected by the plan to eliminate all full-time faculty in favor of
adjunct professors. Therefore, we conclude that the district court erred
in determining, at this stage of the record's development, that Kario-
tis' speech involved a matter of personal, rather than public, concern.
Accordingly we vacate the district court's order dismissing the com-
plaint and remand for further proceedings.* We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
_________________________________________________________________
*In remanding this case, we express no opinion as to whether or not
the speech at issue was protected speech. We conclude only that, on this
record, such a determination was premature.

                    3
