Filed: Nov. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7141 RONALD STEVEN PHILLIP, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RANDY LEE, Warden, Caledonia Institution, Respondent - Appellee, and NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-99-243-1) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7141 RONALD STEVEN PHILLIP, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RANDY LEE, Warden, Caledonia Institution, Respondent - Appellee, and NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-99-243-1) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7141
RONALD STEVEN PHILLIP,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RANDY LEE, Warden, Caledonia Institution,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-99-243-1)
Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul M. Green, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Steven Phillip appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Respondents and denying relief on
his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.
2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district
court. See Phillip v. Lee, No. CA-99-243-1 (M.D.N.C. July 21,
2000).* 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.
DISMISSED
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
July 20, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 21, 2000. 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. See
Wilson v. Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2