UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GENERAL CONFERENCE

CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY

ADVENTISTS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID A. NAMER,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

MEYERS POLLOCK ROBBINS,

INCORPORATED; NORTHSTAR LEASING

COMPANY, L.L.C.; Y. C. LAWS;

DANA E. MILLER; NORTHSTAR

No. 99-2461

AIRLINES, INCORPORATED; NETWORK

MORTGAGE SERVICES; OFFSHORE

INSURANCE SERVICES, INCORPORATED,

a/k/a Offshore Insurance Services

Corporation; LARRY E. BARESEL;

NISSIM RUSSO; MICHAEL PLOSHNICK;

SHELLI PLOSHNICK; PETER

TANNENBAUM; BRUCE BARBERS;

KENNETH TRATTNER; BO RITZ;

SENTINEL TRUST COMPANY; DANIEL

N. BATES; CHRISTOPHER BARONI;

MILTON SITTON; LEE E. BURTON,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(CA-97-3664-PJM)
Submitted: April 20, 2000

Decided: May 4, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN and KING, Circuit Judges,

and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David A. Namer, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Robert Goodstein, Gregory Steven Feder, ARTER & HADDEN, Washington, D.C., for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David Namer appeals from the district court's entry of summary

judgment for the Plaintiff in a federal securities fraud action against

Appellant. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand for

further proceedings.

A review of the record shows that the Plaintiff moved for summary

judgment and submitted depositions, affidavits, and other materials in

support of its motion. The district court granted summary judgment.

However, the district court failed to provide Appellant with the notice

required by Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975),

 2
which prohibits the entry of summary judgment based on a pro se

party's failure to submit affidavits supporting his allegations unless

such party is given a reasonable opportunity to file counter-affidavits

or other appropriate materials and is informed that failure to file such

a response may result in dismissal of the action. See Roseboro, 528

F.2d at 310.

Although Appellant responded to the summary judgment motion,

Appellant did not submit any affidavits or other evidence in support

of his statement. The district court granted the motion for summary

judgment based on Appellant's failure to produce such supporting

evidence. On this record we cannot find that the district court's failure

to provide Roseboro notice was harmless error. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

61; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). We therefore vacate the district court's

order granting summary judgment for the Plaintiff and remand this

case to the district court with instructions to provide Appellant with

the notice and opportunity to respond to which he is entitled.

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. The reason for remand

is wholly procedural and has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 3