Filed: Jun. 05, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6116 TIMOTHY R. BYLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA CUMBIA, Manager, Records Department; EDWARD E. WRIGHT, JR., Warden; GARY L. BASS, Manager, Classification and Records Unit, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1868-AM) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000 Before WILLI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6116 TIMOTHY R. BYLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONNA CUMBIA, Manager, Records Department; EDWARD E. WRIGHT, JR., Warden; GARY L. BASS, Manager, Classification and Records Unit, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1868-AM) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000 Before WILLIA..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6116
TIMOTHY R. BYLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DONNA CUMBIA, Manager, Records Department;
EDWARD E. WRIGHT, JR., Warden; GARY L. BASS,
Manager, Classification and Records Unit,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-99-1868-AM)
Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy R. Byland, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Byland, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999)
complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1999). We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that
this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on
the reasoning of the district court. See Byland v. Cumbia, No. CA-
99-1868-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 1999).* We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
December 17, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 20, 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. Wilson
v. Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2