Filed: May 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2844 MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LANDMARK COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; DAVID R. GOODE; STEVEN C. TOBIAS; JON L. MANETTA; DONALD W. MAYBERRY; WILLIAM E. HONEYCUTT; LEWIS D. HALE; TIMOTHY A. HEILIG; C. DAVID VITTUR; DONALD D. GRAAB; ARTIS L. LUTTRELL; JERRY R. GRAY; WAYNE F. HENLEY; JEFF E. PAIR; JERRY W. CLEMMER, Defendants. Appeal from the United S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2844 MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LANDMARK COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; DAVID R. GOODE; STEVEN C. TOBIAS; JON L. MANETTA; DONALD W. MAYBERRY; WILLIAM E. HONEYCUTT; LEWIS D. HALE; TIMOTHY A. HEILIG; C. DAVID VITTUR; DONALD D. GRAAB; ARTIS L. LUTTRELL; JERRY R. GRAY; WAYNE F. HENLEY; JEFF E. PAIR; JERRY W. CLEMMER, Defendants. Appeal from the United St..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2844
MICHAEL A. SCOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LANDMARK COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; DAVID R. GOODE;
STEVEN C. TOBIAS; JON L. MANETTA; DONALD W.
MAYBERRY; WILLIAM E. HONEYCUTT; LEWIS D. HALE;
TIMOTHY A. HEILIG; C. DAVID VITTUR; DONALD D.
GRAAB; ARTIS L. LUTTRELL; JERRY R. GRAY; WAYNE
F. HENLEY; JEFF E. PAIR; JERRY W. CLEMMER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-97-522-2)
Submitted: May 4, 1999 Decided: May 26, 1999
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Darrell Singer, Sr.,
Rebecca Lynn Deloria, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his mo-
tions for entry of judgment and to amend his notice of appeal. 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 Scott v. Norfolk Southern Corp., No. CA-
97-522-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 1998).* 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
November 16, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 17, 1998. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet
that we take as the effective date of the district court’s
decision. Wilson v. Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).
2