Filed: Mar. 03, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7589 WILLIAM H. MATHEWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DR. PINO; DR. WRIGHT; DR. VELANDIA, et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-897-AW) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7589 WILLIAM H. MATHEWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DR. PINO; DR. WRIGHT; DR. VELANDIA, et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-897-AW) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7589
WILLIAM H. MATHEWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DR. PINO; DR. WRIGHT; DR. VELANDIA, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-99-897-AW)
Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William H. Mathews, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews,
Michael Evan Blumenfeld, KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William H. Mathews appeals the district court’s order denying
relief 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 Mathews v. Pino, No. CA-99-897-AW (D. Md.
Oct. 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 order is marked as “filed” on
October 26, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 27, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date 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