Filed: May 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1216 JAMES WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANET RENO, United States Attorney General; CHARLES ROSSOTTI, Commissioner of Internal Revenue; JOHN DOE, Agent; JANE DOE, Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-99-4232-2-18AJ) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1216 JAMES WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANET RENO, United States Attorney General; CHARLES ROSSOTTI, Commissioner of Internal Revenue; JOHN DOE, Agent; JANE DOE, Agent, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-99-4232-2-18AJ) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, an..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1216
JAMES WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JANET RENO, United States Attorney General;
CHARLES ROSSOTTI, Commissioner of Internal
Revenue; JOHN DOE, Agent; JANE DOE, Agent,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-99-4232-2-18AJ)
Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing
without prejudice his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record
and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v.
Reno, No. CA-99-4232-2-18AJ (D.S.C. Jan. 20, 2000).* 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
January 18, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on January 20, 2000. 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