Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1528 DONNA MARIE HAMILTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE TENENT, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-1195-A) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1528 DONNA MARIE HAMILTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE TENENT, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-1195-A) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1528
DONNA MARIE HAMILTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE TENENT, Director, Central Intelligence
Agency,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-98-1195-A)
Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999
Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donna Marie Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Edward Szybala, As-
sistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donna Marie Hamilton appeals the district court’s order de-
nying relief in her employment discrimination action. 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 Hamilton v. Tenent, No. CA-98-1195-A (E.D. Va.
Feb. 8, 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
February 5, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 8, 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, 1234-45 (4th Cir. 1986) (1994).
2