Santell v. Lafave ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7123
ANTONIO SANTELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
J. E. LAFAVE, Lieutenant,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
99-1801-PJM)
Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 19, 2000
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Santell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Santell appeals the district court’s orders summarily
dismissing his civil right complaint and denying his motion to
vacate. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memo-
randum and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Santell v. Lafave, No. CA-99-
1801-PJM (D. Md. July 9 & Aug. 2, 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 denying the motion to
vacate is marked as “filed” on July 30, 1999, the district court’s
records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 2,
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, 803 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).
2