Court Opinion

ID: 1000836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:46:54.936828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:17.705653
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 99-7680

KEITH A. MCALLISTER,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

ERNEST A. FINNEY, JR., Esquire,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-99-3654-3-10BC)

Submitted:   February 10, 2000           Decided:   February 17, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith A. McAllister, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Keith Andre McAllister appeals the district court’s order dis-

missing his complaint for failing to state a cause of action.   We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s order accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

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

McAllister v. Finney, No. CA-99-3654-3-10BC (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 1999).*

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions 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
December 3, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 6, 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