Court Opinion

ID: 1000229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:37:03.943643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:58.243694
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-6869

ALBERT CURTIS MILLS,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

JACK KAVANAGH,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
97-4043-DKC)

Submitted:   November 4, 1999             Decided:   November 9, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney
General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Albert Curtis Mills appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1983 (West Supp. 1998) 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

Mills v. Kavanagh, No. CA-97-4043-DKC (D. Md. June 9, 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
June 8, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on June 9, 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