Filed: May 11, 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6498
(CA-98-702-S)
Leamon L. Tatum,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
Division of Corrections, et al,
Defendants - Appellees.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed March 4, 1999, as follows:
On page 3, footnote *, lines 2 and 3 -- the dates of “May 16"
and “May 17" are corrected to read “March 16" and “March 17,”
respectively.
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6498
LEAMON L. TATUM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; RICHARD A. LANHAM,
SR.; F. NASTI, Citation Adjuster; JAMES H.
ASHBY, Citation Adjuster; T. PRICE, Citation
Adjuster; WESTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION;
FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Warden; E. J. SCHEWE, ARP
Coordinator; P. KNIGHT, Classification; CMS
NIMES, Classification; R. GROVE, Classifica-
tion; J. F. WHISER, JR., CO II; D. COWAN, CO
II; L. C. REAMS, CO II; S. BOWMAN, CO II; H.
EDMISTON, CO II; C. DETRICK, CO II; C. MCKEN-
ZIE, CO II; J. JOHNSON, CO II; D. STEWART,
Ltd.; K. SHOOK, CO II; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL
SYSTEMS; DEBORAH PULLER, Psych Associate;
JANET HENDERSHOT, Doctor; BRUCE LILLER, Psych
Associate,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
98-702-S)
Submitted: December 15, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1999
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leamon L. Tatum, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
3
PER CURIAM:
Leamon L. Tatum appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) 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. Tatum v. Division of Corrections, No. CA-98-
702-S (D. Md. Mar. 17, 1998).* We also deny Tatum’s motions for
discovery and for appointment of counsel. 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 of judgment is marked as
“filed” on March 16, 1998, the district court’s records show that
it was entered on the docket sheet on March 17, 1998. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the order was physically 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).
4