UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS THOMPSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LAMBERT ECHOLS, Jail Administrator,

Marion County Jail/Correctional

No. 99-6304

Center; CHUCK STEVENS; DALLIS

SICKLES, Correctional Officers,

Marion County Jail/Correctional

Center, in their individual and

official capacities,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.

Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.

(CA-98-168-1)

Submitted: July 27, 1999

Decided: September 15, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas Thompson, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Thompson appeals the district court's orders dismissing

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint alleging defendants failed to protect him from four other inmates while he was

incarcerated at the Marion County Jail and seeking damages and

declaratory and injunctive relief.* Along with his complaint, Thompson submitted an affidavit sworn to by a former fellow prisoner

asserting that Defendant Sickles encouraged the inmates to attack

Thompson and that Defendant Stevens declined to move him to protective custody until after he suffered a second beating. The district

court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b) (West

1999) and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(c)(1) (West Supp. 1999). Unaware of

the dismissal order, Thompson submitted a second affidavit received

by the clerk three days following entry of the court's final order.

Sworn to by one of the prisoners who admits to attacking Thompson,

the prisoner asserts that he and the other assailants beat Thompson at

the request of all three Defendants who promised them a transfer from

the overcrowded jail in exchange for their cooperation. The district

court ordered the affidavit filed and, presumably pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e), reconsidered its decision in light of the new information. Upon reconsideration, the court reaffirmed that Thompson failed

to state a claim because his injuries were de minimis. We find that

Thompson has timely appealed both orders.

We review dismissals for failure to state a claim de novo. See

Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is inappropriate unless it appears

_________________________________________________________________

*We note that Thompson's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief

are now moot because he has been transferred to another correctional

facility.

 2
beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support his

allegations. See Revene v. Charles County Commrs , 882 F.2d 870,

872 (4th Cir. 1989). Thus, when considering dismissal, a court

accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true and affords the

plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn

from the allegations. See Mylan Labs., 7 F.3d at 1134.

However inartfully pleaded by a pro se plaintiff, allegations are

sufficient to call for an opportunity to offer supporting evidence

unless it is beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts

entitling him to relief. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). While

a court is not expected to develop tangential claims from scant assertions in a complaint, if a pro se complaint contains potentially cognizable claims, a plaintiff should be allowed to particularize these

claims. See Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274 (4th Cir.

1985); Coleman v. Peyton, 340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir. 1965).

Because the extent of Thompson's injuries are unclear from the complaint and attachments and because the complaint contains potentially

cognizable claims, we conclude the district court should have provided Thompson with an opportunity to particularize his claims.

Accordingly, we vacate both district court orders and remand the

matter 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

 3