Filed: Jan. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2610 MYRA R. EDWARDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AFBCMR; MALCOLM GROW UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 98-4190) Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2610 MYRA R. EDWARDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AFBCMR; MALCOLM GROW UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 98-4190) Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2610
MYRA R. EDWARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AFBCMR; MALCOLM
GROW UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
98-4190)
Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 19, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Myra R. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Myra R. Edwards appeals the district court’s order denying her
motion to reopen her case based on newly discovered evidence. 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 Edwards v. Department of the Air Force
AFBCMR, No. CA-98-4190 (D. Md. Nov. 16, 1999).* We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly 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 12, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 16, 1999. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date 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