UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2199

TERESA BROCK; ARIEL GHEE,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL; ST. JOSEPH'S MEDICAL CENTER, INCORPORATED; NICOLETTE MORRIS, Doc- tor; JACKIE BAILEY, Registered Nurse; DARLA KRIYA, Registered Nurse; KAYE THOMPSON, Registered Nurse; UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, ANN MARIE BONDS; MT. WASHINGTON PEDIATRIC HOSPITAL; SUSAN MCCOLLEY, Doctor; CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES; CAROLYN BEERS; ALICIA MELVIN; DAWNA BLAKE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1241-HAR)

Submitted: December 10, 1996 Decided: December 23, 1996

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Teresa Brock, Ariel Ghee, Appellants Pro Se. John Russell Penhallegon, SMITH, SOMERVILLE & CASE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's order denying relief in

their

, 1985 (1994) action in which they also

alleged racial discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964. We have reviewed the record with respect to the

Title VI claim and the district court's opinion and find no revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm the disposition of this claim

on the reasoning of the district court. Brock v. St. Joseph's Hosp., No. CA-96-1241-HAR (D. Md. July 24, 1996). We find, however,

that the § 1983 claim should have been dismissed as frivolous under

(e) (West Supp. 1996), rather than pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and affirm the dismissal on that basis. Finally, we find that the § 1985 claim was properly dismissed under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, as appellants have failed to allege specific facts supporting a claim of conspiracy in violation of § 1985. 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 AS MODIFIED

3