Clark v. Underwood ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-1580
    MAZEO CLARK,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CECIL H. UNDERWOOD, Governor, State of West
    Virginia; PHIL GOODWIN, Ex Director, Memorial
    Hospital, Kanawha City; GAYLENE MILLER, Com-
    missioner, Ex Director Earl Jarvis, K.V.S.S.
    Citizen, K.V.S.S. Board of Directors of this
    non profit organization incorporated by the
    State of West Virginia (sic); CHARLESTON
    HOUSING AUTHORITY; CITY OF CHARLESTON, WEST
    VIRGINIA; HUSSIEN E. EL-AHA, Dr.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CA-99-892-2)
    Submitted:     October 31, 2000             Decided:   December 4, 2000
    Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mazeo Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Mazeo Clark appeals the district court’s order denying relief
    on his 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
     (West Supp. 1999) complaint.     We have
    reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the
    magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
    Clark v. Underwood, No. CA-99-892-2 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 25, 2000).*
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
    tions 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
    April 24, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
    entered on the docket sheet on April 25, 2000. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-1580

Filed Date: 12/4/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014