Quander v. Arlington County ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 98-2587
    JOHN TIMOTHY QUANDER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ARLINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    EDWARD P. PLAUGHER, Arlington County, Fire
    Chief; FLOYD WALTERS, SR., Battalion Chief,
    Manager; JOHN WHITE, Battalion Chief, Manager;
    KENNETH JOHNSON, Captain; ARLINGTON COUNTY
    FIRE DEPARTMENT,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. W. Curtis Sewell, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-98-459-A)
    Submitted:   January 21, 1999             Decided:   February 5, 1999
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John Timothy Quander, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Harlan Maier, Assis-
    tant County Attorney, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    John Timothy Quander appeals the magistrate judge’s order
    granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his employment dis-
    crimination action.1   Our review of the record and the magistrate
    judge’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we af-
    firm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.      See Quander v.
    Arlington County, No. CA-98-459-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 1998).2   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
    1
    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
    judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c) (1994).
    2
    Although the magistrate judge’s order is marked as “filed”
    on September 18, 1998, the district court’s records show that it
    was entered on the docket sheet on September 21, 1998. 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 decision. See Wilson v.
    Murray, 
    806 F.2d 1232
    , 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-2587

Filed Date: 2/5/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021