Buchanan v. Moore

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6120 JASPER NAPOLEON BUCHANAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL W. MOORE; WILLIAM D. CATOE; COLIE L. RUSHTON; CHRISTIE FLEMING, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-2135-0-08BD) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jasper Napoleon Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Lee Reeves, LEWIS, REEVES & STONE, Columbia, South Carolina; James Miller Davis, Jr., DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jasper Napoleon Buchanan appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) com- plaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Buchanan v. Moore, No. CA-98-2135-0-08BD (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2000).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on January 10, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on January 11, 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