Filed: Feb. 02, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7447 STEPHAN D. BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT RIDDLE; MECKLENBURG COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; MECKLENBURG COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-188-3-MU-2) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 2, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7447 STEPHAN D. BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT RIDDLE; MECKLENBURG COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; MECKLENBURG COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-188-3-MU-2) Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 2, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. D..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7447
STEPHAN D. BROOKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SERGEANT RIDDLE; MECKLENBURG COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; MECKLENBURG COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-188-3-MU-2)
Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 2, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephan D. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stephan D. Brooks, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the dis-
trict 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 Brooks v.
Riddle, No. CA-99-188-3-MU-2 (W.D.N.C. June 4, 1999).* 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
June 1, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on June 4, 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