Court Opinion

ID: 999545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:27:18.254573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:40.878925
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 99-6590

JAMES M. BIVENS,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DAVID GARRAGHTY,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-99-226-7)

Submitted:   August 19, 1999                 Decided:   August 26, 1999

Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. Bivens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     James Bivens seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999).   We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court.       See Bivens v. Garraghty, No. CA-

99-226-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 5, 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.

                                                             DISMISSED

    *
      Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
April 2, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on April 5, 1999. 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. See Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                                   2