UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR D. MOBLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 96-2111
RICHARD RUDEZ; HENRY PANKIE;
JOHN BAKER; DANIEL KAHN,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.
(CA-96-1685-HAR)

Submitted: November 26, 1996

Decided: January 21, 1997

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Arthur D. Mobley, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his
civil action. Appellant's complaint sought damages for alleged con-
duct by his supervisors and others at the United States Postal Service
whose actions he claims forced him into disability retirement. The
district court dismissed Appellant's complaint on its own motion
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We vacate and remand for further con-
sideration.

A court may, on its own initiative, dismiss a civil complaint for
failing to state a claim. 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 301 (2d ed. 1990). In such
situations, however, notice and an opportunity to be heard are nor-
mally required. E.g., Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank, 874 F.2d 1177,
1184-85 (7th Cir. 1989). Although this Court has not directly
addressed the notice issue in the context of a sua sponte dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6), we have held that notice and an opportunity to
be heard are required, regardless of the merits, prior to a sua sponte
summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. United States Dev.
Corp. v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 873 F.2d 731, 736 (4th Cir.
1989).

Because Appellant did not receive notice of the district court's
intention to enter a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we vacate the judgment
of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                    2
