Case ID: f-appx_2/html/0252-02.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

Craig SMITHRICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.E. GUNJA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 00-7546.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 19, 2001.
    
      Craig Smithrick, pro se.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Craig Smithrick appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smithrick v. Gunja, No. CA-00-2917-WMN (D.Md. Oct. 11, 2000). 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. 
      
       Although the district court’s order is marked as "filed” on October 10, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on October 11, 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. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.1986).