UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE WAYNE KOENIG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES HAGY; CHARLES JENKINS;
RICHARD ROCHFORD; BARRY STANTON;
ROBERT GREEN; JAY FRIEND; ELYSTAN
HAPGOOD; PETER HESS; NORMAN
RAIOS; STEVEN RAU; JOHN DOE
WARD; JOHN DOE BOONE; JOHN DOE
CARROLL; JOHN DOE CRONISE; CHRIS
FIGGATT; JOHN DOE FORD; DEIDRE
HALL; ELIZABETH LAUGHTON; DONALD
MORELEY; JOHN DOE MORRISON; JOHN
DOE PEARSON; JEROME RANDOLPH;
                                               No. 98-7039
JOHN DOE SACKETT; JOHN DOE SELIN;
JUDY SINGLE; CHRIS SMITH; ANNA
THOMAS; JOHN DOE THOMPSON; JOHN
DOE TORRES; GEORGE YARNELL;
UNKNOWN STAFF MEMBERS; NANCY
PEARSON, R.N.; UNKNOWN MEDICAL
STAFF MEMBERS; EMSA
CORRECTIONAL CARE; BRUCE GRAY;
ILONA HOGAN; MARK HOKE; BRUCE
REEDER; TERRE RHODERICK; BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FREDERICK
COUNTY; JORGE GARCIA; CHRIS
MCLOUGHLIN,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-97-2998-JFM)
Submitted: February 23, 1999

Decided: March 16, 1999

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

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Bruce Wayne Koenig, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Karp, Kevin Bock
Karpinski, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore,
Maryland; James Matthew Heffler, Donald Joseph Crawford,
GODARD, WEST & ADELMAN, P.C., Rockville, Maryland; Joseph
D. Looney, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Wayne Koenig appeals the district court's order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and affirm on the reasoning of the district
court with respect to all Defendants except Nancy Pearson. See
Koenig v. Hagy, No. CA-97-2998-JFM (D. Md. July 1, 1998).* The
_________________________________________________________________
*Although the district court's order is marked as"filed" on June 30,
1998, the district court's records show that it was entered on the docket

                    2
district court dismissed without prejudice all claims against Pearson
because it found that service of process had not been effected on her.
Because the record reveals that Pearson was served, we vacate that
portion of the district court's order dismissing Koenig's claims
against her and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the dis-
trict court may consider whether Pearson was served within the time
frame established by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
dure. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con-
tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
_________________________________________________________________
sheet on July 1, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the
docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court's deci-
sion. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                    3
