Filed: Jul. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7774 DONNELL S. BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF MCCABE; JOHN DOE, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees, and NORFOLK CITY JAIL, Medical Department; MR. LATNEY, Administrator of the Norfolk City Jail Medical Staff, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-758-AM) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7774 DONNELL S. BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERIFF MCCABE; JOHN DOE, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees, and NORFOLK CITY JAIL, Medical Department; MR. LATNEY, Administrator of the Norfolk City Jail Medical Staff, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-758-AM) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7774
DONNELL S. BYRD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHERIFF MCCABE; JOHN DOE, Doctor,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
NORFOLK CITY JAIL, Medical Department; MR.
LATNEY, Administrator of the Norfolk City Jail
Medical Staff,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-97-758-AM)
Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999
Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donnell S. Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Vir-
ginia Beach, Virginia; Deborah Sue Prince, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM
& LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donnell Byrd 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’s opinion and find no re-
versible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Byrd v. McCabe, No. CA-97-758-AM (E.D. Va.
Nov. 5, 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 date stamped November
2, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on
the docket sheet on November 5, 1998. 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, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2