UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GATES, HUDSON & ASSOCIATES,

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

No. 98-2172

v.

SIMON BANKS; CAMILLE T. TAYLOR,

Defendants-Appellants.

GATES, HUDSON & ASSOCIATES,

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

No. 98-2210

v.

SIMON BANKS; CAMILLE T. TAYLOR,

Defendants-Appellants.

SIMON BANKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

CAMILLE T. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

No. 98-2485

v.

KEVIN M. FITZPATRICK; FITZPATRICK

& RAFTERY, P.C.; GATES, HUDSON &

ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; E.

ROBERT GIAMMITTORIO, Chief Judge,

Alexandria General District Court;
BECKY MOORE; JAMES S. GILMORE,

III, Governor of Virginia; JAMES H.

DUNNING, Sheriff for Alexandria, 

Virginia,

Defendants-Appellees.

GATES, HUDSON & ASSOCIATES,

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

No. 98-2488

v.

SIMON BANKS; CAMILLE T. TAYLOR,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge;

Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.

(CA-98-514-A, CA-98-1150-A, CA-98-1116-A)

Submitted: April 13, 1999

Decided: April 30, 1999

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Nos. 98-2172 and 98-2485 affirmed; Nos. 98-2210 and 98-2488

affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

 2
COUNSEL

Simon Banks, Camille T. Taylor, Appellants Pro Se. Alan Russell

Siciliano, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER &

DEBLASIS, L.L.P., Alexandria, Virginia; John Benjamin Raftery,

FITZPATRICK & RAFTERY, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Simon Banks and Camille Taylor ("Appellants") have filed four

consolidated appeals stemming from three closely related district

court cases.

In appeal number 98-2172, Appellants appeal the district court's

order remanding to state court the unlawful detainer action in which

they are Defendants. In light of the procedural posture of this matter,

we need not review the propriety of the remand order. The unlawful

detainer action proceeded to completion in state court during the pendency of these appeals. Therefore, even if we were to review the order

and conclude that the remand was in error, relitigation of the unlawful

detainer claim would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See

generally Sykes v. Texas Air Corp., 834 F.2d 488, 490-91 (5th Cir.

1987) (discussing "peculiar" quality of appellate review of remand

orders). Accordingly, we affirm.

In appeal number 98-2210, Appellants appeal the district court's

orders denying their emergency motion and deeming their second

removed case closed. We have reviewed the record and the district

court opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

 3
the reasoning of the district court. See Gates, Hudson & Assocs., Inc.

v. Banks, No. CA-98-1150-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 1998).*

In appeal number 98-2488, Appellants appeal the district court's

order granting Appellee's second motion to remand, entered after

Appellants had noted appeal number 98-2210. Because Appellants

had already noted an appeal of the district court's order closing the

case, the district court was without jurisdiction to grant the motion to

remand. See Fobian v. Storage Technology Corp. , 164 F.3d 887, 890

(4th Cir. 1999). We therefore vacate that portion of the district court's

order remanding the action, and remand for such further proceedings,

if any, as the district court deems appropriate. With regard to the

imposition of sanctions, we have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

the portion of the district court's order that imposes sanctions on the

reasoning of the district court. See Gates, Hudson & Assocs., Inc. v.

Banks, No. CA-98-1150-A (E.D. Va., filed Aug. 21, 1998; entered

Aug. 24, 1998; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, 79(a)); see also Langham-Hill

Petroleum Inc. v. Southern Fuels Co., 813 F.2d 1327, 1330-31 (4th

Cir. 1987). We deny Appellants' motion for summary reversal of the

district court's August 24, 1998, order.

In appeal number 98-2485, Appellants appeal the district court's

order dismissing their action seeking injunctive and mandamus relief

as well as monetary damages. We have reviewed the record and the

district court opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Banks v. Fitzpatrick,

No. CA-98-1116-A (E.D. Va., filed Aug. 27, 1998; entered Aug. 31,

1998; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, 79(a)).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

_________________________________________________________________

*Although the district court's orders are marked as"filed" on August

10 and 11, 1998, the district court's records show that the orders were

entered on the docket sheet on August 17, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the

orders were entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date

of the district court's decisions. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232,

1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

 4
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

Nos. 98-2172/2485 - AFFIRMED

Nos. 98-2210/2488 - AFFIRMED IN PART,

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

 5