Holland v. Lanham ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6702
MUREL HOLLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL S. BRUCE, Officer, CO II; MARSHA
GRIFFIN, Officer, CO II; TODD ALEXANDER,
Officer, CO II,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; EUGENE M. NUTH,
Warden; CAPTAIN LOCKLEAR, CO V; LIEUTENANT
AULU, CO V; STUART H. SHAPIRO, M.D.; JEAN
SNYDER; PATRICIA WRIGHT, Doctor, M.D.; MARCIA
L. UPDIKE, Physician Assistant; MARVIN BRUCE,
Physician Assistant,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-96-1745-WMN)
Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: December 10, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Murel Holland, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General,
Glen T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Murel Holland appeals the district court's order granting
judgment as a matter of law to Defendants in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983(West Supp. 1999) action on the basis that the pain and/or injury
Holland suffered was de minimis and therefore insufficient to
sustain a viable claim.
We review a district court's grant of judgment as a matter of
law de novo. See Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. v.
Objective Inc., 180 F.3d 583, 588 (4th Cir. 1999). On review, the
facts are viewed and inferences are drawn in a light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. See Singer v. Dungan, 45 F.3d 823, 827
(4th Cir. 1995). We have reviewed the record in light of the
relevant case law and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court's order. See Holland v. Lanham No. CA-
96-1745-WMN (D. Md. May 5, 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 of judgment is marked as
"filed" on May 4, 1999, the district court's records show that it
was entered on the docket sheet on May 5, 1999. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the judgment or 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).
- 3 -