Court Opinion

ID: 1000311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:38:24.854508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:25.319101
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7136

ELWOOD COX-EL,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

MIKE HENNLEIN, Commanding Officer,

                                              Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
99-2113-S)

Submitted:   November 18, 1999         Decided:     November 24, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elwood Cox-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Elwood Cox-El appeals the district court’s order denying re-

lief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) 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.    See Cox-El v. Hennlein, No. CA-99-2113-S (D.

Md. July 23, 1999).*   We deny Cox-El’s motion for the appointment

of counsel and 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 21, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 23, 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