Hill v. Frederick Cnty Det

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6331 PHILLIP E. HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FREDERICK COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER, Sheriff’s Department; OFFICER MERCER; OFFICER PERDEE; LINDA WEBB, Nurse; DOCTOR NOBI; ROBERT HARGIS, State’s Attorney; RANDY MARTIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 00-243-DKC) Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 3, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip E. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Phillip E. Hill appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. 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 Hill v. Frederick County Adult Detention Ctr., No. CA-00-243-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 1, 2000).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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 February 28, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on March 1, 2000. 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). 2