Filed: Nov. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7136 ELWOOD COX-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MIKE HENNLEIN, Commanding Officer, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7136 ELWOOD COX-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MIKE HENNLEIN, Commanding Officer, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 ..
More
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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