UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2020
JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INCORPORATED; FIRST NORTH
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 99-2021
JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CIRCUIT CITY STORES; CIRCUIT CITY STORES,
INCORPORATED; FIRST NORTH AMERICAN NATIONAL
BANK,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 99-2022
JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INCORPORATED; FIRST NORTH
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-98-1407-A, CA-99-695-A, CA-99-696-A)
Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999
Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph R. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Miles Kowalski,
MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph R. Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing with prejudice his civil action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b)(2)(C). 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 Johnson v. Circuit City
Stores, Inc., Nos. CA-98-1407-A; CA-99-695-A; CA-99-696-A (E.D. Va.
July 15, 1999).* We deny Appellees’ motion to strike Johnson’s re-
ply or in the alternative motion for leave to file a surreply. 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 order is marked as “filed” on
July 13, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on July 15, 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. See Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
3