UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 district court may consider whether Pearson was served within the time

frame 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 the

docket 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