Court Opinion

ID: 999147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:21:24.331887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:10.694942
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 99-6054

ISAAC GRAY,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

ARCHIE C. GEE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                            Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
98-4104-CCB)

Submitted:    April 6, 1999                   Decided:   July 8, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Gray, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Isaac Gray appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition.   We have reviewed the rec-

ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Gray v. Gee, No. CA-98-4104-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 30, 1998*).    We dis-

pense 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 judgment or order is marked as
“filed” on Dec. 28, 1998, the district court’s records show that it
was entered on the docket sheet on Dec. 30, 1998.       Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the judgment or 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