Case ID: f-appx_1/html/0247-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Florence Amelia SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee. Florence Amelia Smith, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry J. Wilson, Judge; Andrew C. Neis-ler, Jr., Attorney; Anna F. Foster, Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 00-2218, 00-2277.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 17, 2001.
    Florence Amelia Smith, pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Florence Amelia Smith appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her cases, denying her motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordering that any of her future district court pleadings be reviewed by the court prior to filing. We have reviewed the records in both cases and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals as frivolous on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. North Carolina, No. CA-00-193-1-T (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29 & Sept. 13, 2000); Smith v. Wilson, No. CA-00-160-1-T (W.D.N.C. July 25 & Aug. 10, 2000). We also deny Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel filed in No. 00-2277. 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.

DISMISSED. 
      
       Although the district court's August 29, 2000, order in No. 00-2218 is marked as “filed” on August 28, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 29, 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).