UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1513
MICHAEL A. SCOTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
D. R. GOODE, individually and in his official
capacity with Northern Southern Corporation;
S. C. TOBIAS, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; J.
L. MANETTA, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; D.
W. MAYBERRY, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; W.
E. HONEYCUTT, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; L.
D. HALE, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; T.
A. HEILIG, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; C.
D. VITTUR, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; D.
D. GRAAB, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; A.
L. LUTTRELL, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; J.
R. GRAY, individually and in his official ca-
pacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; W.
F. HENLEY, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; J.
E. PAIR, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation; J.
W. CLEMMER, individually and in his official
capacity with Norfolk Southern Corporation,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-96-257-2)
Submitted: August 24, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Johnson Webster,
Heather Ann Mullen, WILLIAMS, KELLY & GREER, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael A. Scott appeals the district court’s judgment grant-
ing summary judgment to the Appellee and dismissing his claim that
the Appellee retaliated against him by proposing a job transfer to
another location which was subsequently rescinded. We have re-
viewed the record and the district court’s order and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Scott v. Norfolk Southern Corp., No. CA-96-
257-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 17, 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.
AFFIRMED
*
Although the district court’s judgment is marked as “filed”
on March 16, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on March 17, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the judgment 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).
3