Wilson v. Clark ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-2557
    ALTON WILSON; JASPER MOORE,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    GRAHAM CLARK, III, Attorney; JUDSON BLOUNT,
    III, Attorney; JOHN H. HARMON, Attorney; PETER
    J.M. ROMARY, Attorney; ROBERT PERRY, Attorney;
    WAYMAN CAMPBELL MCCORQUODALE, JR.; NORTHBROOK
    PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CA-99-59-4-H-3)
    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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Alton Wilson, Jasper Moore, Appellants Pro Se. Dan Johnson McLamb,
    YATES, MCLAMB & WEYHER, Raleigh, North Carolina; Dan McCord
    Hartzog, Patrick Houghton Flanagan, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Alton Wilson and Jasper Moore appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on their 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
     (West Supp. 1999)
    complaint.    We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
    opinion and find no reversible error.      Accordingly, we affirm on
    the reasoning of the district court.     See Wilson v. Clark, No. CA-
    99-59-4-H-3 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 1999).*    We dispense with oral argu-
    ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
    sented 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
    October 18, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
    entered on the docket sheet on October 19, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
    58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
    date 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-2557

Filed Date: 4/19/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014