Court Opinion

ID: 1000452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:40:55.989413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:15.634810
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-2403

ISAIAH HARLEY,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

VICTORIA A. LAMBERT;     LUCENT    TECHNOLOGIES,
INCORPORATED,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
99-2862-CCB)

Submitted:   December 16, 1999           Decided:   December 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaiah Harley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Isaiah Harley appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his civil complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

(West Supp. 1999).   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 Harley v.

Lambert, No. CA-99-2862-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 29, 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
September 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on September 29, 1999. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date 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