Case Name: Darrin G. ARBOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mrs. EZELL, Food Service Supervisor; Ethel Lankford, Food Service Manager; J. Capps, Grievance Coordinator; A. Tillery, Grievance Coordinator; M.J. Wilkerson, Regional Director; Rufus Fleming, Deputy Director; Maryland Pope, Food Service Director; Greensville Correctional Food Service Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-25
Citations: 2 F. App'x 348
Docket Number: No. 00-7314
Parties: Darrin G. ARBOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mrs. EZELL, Food Service Supervisor; Ethel Lankford, Food Service Manager; J. Capps, Grievance Coordinator; A. Tillery, Grievance Coordinator; M.J. Wilkerson, Regional Director; Rufus Fleming, Deputy Director; Maryland Pope, Food Service Director; Greensville Correctional Food Service Department, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 2
Pages: 348–348

Head Matter:
Darrin G. ARBOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mrs. EZELL, Food Service Supervisor; Ethel Lankford, Food Service Manager; J. Capps, Grievance Coordinator; A. Tillery, Grievance Coordinator; M.J. Wilkerson, Regional Director; Rufus Fleming, Deputy Director; Maryland Pope, Food Service Director; Greensville Correctional Food Service Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-7314.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 18, 2001.
Decided Jan. 25, 2001.
Darrin G. Arbor, pro se. Banci Enga Tewolde, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellees.
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit JJ., and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darrin G. Arbor appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. 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. Arbor v. Ezell, No. CA-99-905-AM (E.D.Va. Aug. 23, 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 August 21, 2000, the district court's records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 23, 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).