Case Name: Yerachmiel P. HALEIVI, Constitutionalist, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT, House and Senate; United States President, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-14
Citations: 115 F. App'x 132
Docket Number: No. 04-1984
Parties: Yerachmiel P. HALEIVI, Constitutionalist, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT, House and Senate; United States President, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 132–133

Head Matter:
Yerachmiel P. HALEIVI, Constitutionalist, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT, House and Senate; United States President, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-1984.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2004.
Decided Dec. 14, 2004.
Yerachmiel P. HaLeivi, Appellant pro se. Scott Ramsey McIntosh, Teal Luthy Miller, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Yerachmiel P. HaLeivi appeals the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendants' motion to dismiss his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See HaLeivi v. Congress and President, CA-03-196-5 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 31, 2004). 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
We note that although HaLeivi did not file his notice of appeal until August 3, 2004, which was 125 days after the district court's final order, we have jurisdiction over the appeal due to the district court's failure to enter judgment on a separate document as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. See Quinn v. Haynes, 234 F.3d 837, 843 (4th Cir.2000).