¶1 OPINION
¶2 We ordered a limited remand of this case to the district court to ascertain whether Somjai Murrell’s allegations in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint amount to an attack on a conviction for which he was incarcerated. The district court found that Murrell’s action challenged the fact or duration of his confinement, and thus should have been brought under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). On remand, the district court determined that Murrell was challenging an arrest that did not lead to a conviction or incarceration, and therefore that the incident that forms the basis of his § 1983 complaint is unconnected to his current incarceration. Thus, his claim is cognizable under § 1983. See Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 181-82 (4th Cir.1996). We therefore vacate the district court’s dismissal of Murrell’s action and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
¶3 VACATED AND REMANDED.