                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                       _____________________

                            No. 97-50929
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________

                         THOMAS ALAN GUNN,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                              versus

             BELL COUNTY, Texas; BELL COUNTY, Sheriff;
         UNIDENTIFIED, Sheriff’s Deputies for Bell County,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                           (W-96-CV-211)
_________________________________________________________________
                            May 21, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Thomas Alan Gunn, federal prisoner # 60879-080, appeals the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.    Gunn contends that the

district court erred by dismissing his claims, pursuant to FED. R.

CIV. P. 12(b)(6), against Bell County and the Bell County Sheriff

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and

by denying his “Motion to Amend Jurisdiction to Include 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332".


     *
          Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
       Based upon our review of the record, we AFFIRM the dismissal

of the claims against Bell County and the Sheriff, and the denial

of Gunn’s motion to amend jurisdiction, for essentially the reasons

stated by the district court.       Gunn v. Bell County, Texas, No. W-

96-CA-211 (W.D. Tex. September 30, 1997).            Gunn’s conclusional

allegation, made for the first time on appeal, that the defendants

acted with gross negligence or deliberate indifference, is not

reversible plain error.     See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70

F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).

       Gunn also contends that the district court erred by dismissing

with   prejudice   his   claims   against   the   unidentified   deputies,

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).     Even assuming that the district

court erred by dismissing those claims with prejudice, any error is

harmless, because any amended complaint filed by Gunn to substitute

named defendants would not relate back to the date of his original

complaint under FED. R. CIV. P. 15(c)(3) and, therefore, would be

time-barred.    See Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 320 (5th Cir.

1998); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.003; Burrell v.

Newsome, 883 F.2d 416, 418 (5th Cir. 1989).

                                                           AFFIRMED




                                   - 2 -
