Chesson v. Davis, (4th Cir. 1999)
Linked as:
Text
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7713 ROBERT LEE CHESSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus
FRANK DAVIS, Officer, Washington City Sheriff
Department; KEVIN SAWYER, Officer, Washington
City Sheriff Department, Defendants - Appellees, and
RONALD MCKINLEY, Officer, Washington City Po-
lice Department, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Alexander B. Denson, Magis-
trate Judge. (CA-96-107-CT-DE-5)
Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999
Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee Chesson, Appellant Pro Se. Keith David Burns, FAISON &
GILLESPIE, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
The parties consented to have the case heard by a magistrate judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2 Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on October 28, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 30, 1998. Pursuant to Rules
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the judgment or 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). 3 PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Chesson appeals the magistrate judge’s order grant-
ing judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Defendants follow-
ing a jury verdict in his trial on an excessive force claim under
U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998). 1 We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.
See
Chesson v. Davis
, No. CA-96-107-CT-DE-5 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 1998). 2 We deny Appellant’s motion 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
Sponsored links
