UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BRUCE WAYNE KOENIG, Plaintiff-Appellant,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_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.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
2district court dismissed without prejudice all claims against Pearson because it f ound 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 claimsagainst her and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the district court may consider whether Pearson was served within the timeframe established by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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. 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 thedocket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court's decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
3