Pratt v. Walmer Enterprises

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1749
JIMMY PRATT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WALMER ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 99-1880
JIMMY PRATT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WALMER ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-98-1588-A)
Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Pratt, Appellant Pro Se. Victor Michael Glasberg, VICTOR M.
GLASBERG & ASSOCIATES, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Pratt appeals the district court’s order granting sum-
mary judgment to Walmer Enterprises in Pratt’s employment discrim-
ination action and granting Defendant’s motion for sanctions. 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 Pratt v. Walmer Enterprises, No. CA-98-
1588-A (E.D. Va. May 17 & June 23, 1999).* Due to the sanctions
imposed below and the fact that Pratt has neither filed numerous
frivolous actions in the past nor ignored previous warnings by this
court, we deny Walmer’s motion for sanctions. We warn Pratt, how-
ever, that any future attempt to challenge the district court’s
judgment may result in the imposition of sanctions. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed”
on May 14 and June 22, 1999, the district court’s records show that
they were entered on the docket sheet on May 17 and June 23, 1999,
respectively. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically
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