UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

W. C., an inmate at the Maryland

House of Correction,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary of

Public Safety and Correctional

Services; RICHARD LANHAM; MERRY

COPLIN; FRED JORDAN; ELMANUS

HERNDON; HOWARD N. LYLES; FORD

BREWER, Dr.; CORRECTIONAL

MEDICAL SERVICES (CMS), Inc.;

ROBERT C. GRANGER; NEVZAT

TURKMAN; DR. SHAW-TAYLOR; PHP

HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; JAMES

No. 96-7549

ROLLINS; THE ESTATE OF VICTOR J.

LUCKRITZ, by Patrick McCardle,

Personal Representative,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

PHILLIP R. NICHOLS; STEVEN F.

ASHCRAFT; DENNIS HUGHES; ROBERT

BUCHANAN; FARRAOUHK MOHADJERIN;

JAMES TINNEY, III; MICHAEL

MIGINSKY,

Defendants,

JEFFREY TAYLOR, Esquire, acting on

behalf of the plaintiff,

Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Edward S. Northrop, Senior District Judge.

(CA-94-1881-N)

Argued: May 6, 1997

Decided: June 4, 1997

Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and

Joseph F. ANDERSON, Jr., United States District Judge for the

District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Robert Bruce McElhone, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G.

ANGELOS, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Kevin Francis

Arthur, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Wendy

Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland;

Paul T. Cuzmanes, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN

& DICKER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Gertrude C. Bartel, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellees Correctional Medical Systems, et al; Stephanie LaneWeber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees Robinson, et al; Thomas C. Swiers, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees PHP Healthcare, et al; Susan T. Preston, GOODELL,

DEVRIES, LEECH & GRAY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee

McArdle.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

 2
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

W.C., an inmate in a Maryland state prison, appeals the summary

judgment in favor of the defendants in W.C.'s action in which he

alleged that he contracted the AIDS virus from a prison dentist who

had the disease but who took inadequate precautions in his dental

practice. We affirm.

The dentist's death on May 7, 1991, from AIDS-related causes was

widely reported in the Maryland newspapers. An AIDS testing and

counseling program was quickly instituted for all inmates who had

been treated by the dentist. W.C. had his first blood test on May 28,

1991, and a prison nurse informed him on June 13, 1991, that the

results were positive. The nurse also noted that the test often returned

false-positive results, and W.C. was retested. On July 4, he was told

that the results of the second test were positive.

Three years later, on July 5, 1994, W.C. filed suit against a host of

defendants under a variety of theories. The district court dismissed the

federal claims on the ground that the suit was filed after the statute

of limitation had expired.*

The parties agree that Maryland's three-year limitations applies,

that the accrual date is a matter of federal law, and that "[u]nder federal law a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff possesses sufficient facts about the harm done to him that reasonable inquiry will

reveal his cause of action." Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of

Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). The only

argument W.C. raises on appeal is that he must have had "unequivocal notice" that he was actually harmed (that he had the virus) before

he can be deemed to have been placed on inquiry notice of his cause

of action. He contends that the circumstances existing prior to July 4,

1991 -- for instance, that he was asymptomatic and that he was told

that the tests often returned false-positive results-- raise at least a

_________________________________________________________________

*The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law

causes of action. W.C. takes no issue with this ruling.

 3
genuine issue of fact about when he should be deemed to have known

that he had been harmed.

The district court held that the cause of action accrued on June 16,

1991, because that is when W.C. had sufficient knowledge that he

was infected and that it could have been caused by contact with the

prison dentist; "unequivocal notice" or near-certainty of the injury's

existence and its cause are not required to trigger the limitations

period. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's memorandum opinion. W.C. v. Robinson, Civil No. N-94-1881 (D. Md.

Aug. 20, 1996).

AFFIRMED

 4