Filed: Nov. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2198 BRIAN K. GAGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1885-AMD) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2198 BRIAN K. GAGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1885-AMD) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2198
BRIAN K. GAGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General; UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97-
1885-AMD)
Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999
Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian K. Gage, Appellant Pro Se. Angela R. White, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Brian K. Gage appeals the district court’s order granting sum-
mary judgment in his former employer's favor in this disability
discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the dis-
trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gage v.
Runyon, No. CA-97-1885-AMD (D. Md. July 27, 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 judgment is marked as “filed”
on July 26, 1999, the district court’s records show that the
judgment was entered on the docket sheet on July 27, 1999.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), we consider the date the
judgment was entered as the effective date of the district court’s
decision. See Wilson v. Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).
2