Filed: Dec. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1811 TANYA ENGLISH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-99-1244-2) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 20, 2000 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Kmetz, Norfolk, V
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1811 TANYA ENGLISH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-99-1244-2) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 20, 2000 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael D. Kmetz, Norfolk, Vi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1811
TANYA ENGLISH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CA-99-1244-2)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 20, 2000
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D. Kmetz, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. David W. Ogden,
Assistant Attorney General, Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney,
Robert S. Greenspan, E. Roy Hawkens, Appellate Staff, Civil Divi-
sion, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tanya English appeals the district court’s order granting the
United States’ motion to dismiss her Federal Torts Claim Act action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). We have reviewed the parties’
briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. English v. United States, No. CA-99-1244-2
(E.D. Va. May 24, 2000).* We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
May 23, 2000, the district court’s records show that the order was
entered on the docket sheet on May 24, 2000. Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), we consider the date the order was entered as
the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.
Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2