Court Opinion

ID: 1000138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:35:37.978136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:47.557549
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 99-2034

LOUIS J. DE MAIO,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

ROBERT E. RUBIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,

                                                Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98-
3830-L)

Submitted:   October 21, 1999              Decided:   October 26, 1999

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis J. De Maio, Appellant Pro Se. Roann Nichols, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Louis J. De Maio appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his civil action alleging employment discrimination.    We have re-

viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error.    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court.     See De Maio v. Rubin, No. CA-98-3830-L (D. Md.

July 13, 1999).*    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
July 12, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 13, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date
that the order was physically 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).

                                  2