Wright v. Hillyan

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6182 DANIEL WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN HILLYAN, Solicitor; BRANA WILLIAMS, Dep- uty Solicitor; REUBEN GOUDE, Attorney; RALPH WILSON, Solicitor; MARTHA HUNT, Lieutenant; LINDA CANTEEN, Victims Advocate; ELSIE F. CROSBY, Special Defense Prosecutor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-98-1216-9-19) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 3, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Lynn Kraftchick, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Daniel Wright appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wright v. Hillyan, No. CA-98-1216-9-19 (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 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. AFFIRMED * Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on January 5, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on January 26, 2000. 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