Filed: May 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1161 DANIEL P. WOODLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HON COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. THOMAS H. ROBERTS, Esq., Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-02-186-3) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1161 DANIEL P. WOODLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HON COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. THOMAS H. ROBERTS, Esq., Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-02-186-3) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1161
DANIEL P. WOODLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HON COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
THOMAS H. ROBERTS, Esq.,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-186-3)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel P. Woodlin, Appellant Pro Se. Lynn Forgrieve Jacob, Dana
C.M. Peluso, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel P. Woodlin appeals the district court’s order denying
his civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Woodlin
v. Hon Co., No. CA-02-186-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 30, 2002).* 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
*
The district court’s order dismissing the action was entered
on the docket sheet on December 30, 2002. Contrary to the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, however, the court never
entered its judgment in a separate document. As a result, the time
limit for noting an appeal never began to run. See Bankers Trust
Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 384-85 (1978). We accordingly deem
the appeal timely.
2
