Court Opinion

ID: 999559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:27:26.181177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:21.894107
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 99-1731

ELGIE B. RICHARDS,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

TOGO P. WEST, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES
ARMY,

                                                 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-99-365-A)

Submitted:   August 19, 1999                 Decided:   August 25, 1999

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elgie B. Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Helen F. Fahey, United States
Attorney, Major Thomas Mercer Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Elgie B. Richards appeals the district court’s order denying

relief in his employment discrimination action.    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.    See Richards v. West, No. CA-99-365-A (E.D. Va. May 17,

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
May 14, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on May 17, 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