Renoir v. McMillan

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6944 PIERRE A. RENOIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE MCMILLAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-356-7) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 8, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pierre A. Renoir, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pierre Renoir appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) com- plaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (West Supp. 1999), and denying his motion for appointment of counsel, request for evi- dentiary hearing, and petition for subpoena. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Renoir v. McMillan, No. CA-99-356-7 (W.D. Va. June 30, 1999).* We further deny Renoir’s “motion for court order for copies.” 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. DISMISSED * Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on June 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on June 30, 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). 2