United States v. Endicott ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1212
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM R. ENDICOTT, DDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-97-1413-4-22)
Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William R. Endicott, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Endicott appeals the district court’s orders: (1)
adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to impose civil
penalties and imposing sanctions; and (2) denying Endicott’s Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record, the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge, and the order denying the Rule 59(e)
motion, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Endicott,
No. CA-97-1413-4-22 (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 1998, and Jan. 15, 1999).* 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
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
January 14, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on January 15, 1999. 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).
2