Isaac Gray v. Gee, (4th Cir. 1999)

Federal Circuits

Linked as:

Text


UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6054 ISAAC GRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

ARCHIE C. GEE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-

-4104-CCB)

Submitted: April 6, 1999 Decided: July 8, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

* Although the district court’s judgment or order is marked as “filed” on Dec. 28, 1998, the district court’s records show that it

was entered on the docket sheet on Dec. 30, 1998. Pursuant to

Rules 58 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 courtÂ’s

decision. See

Wilson v. Murray

, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM:

Isaac Gray appeals the district courtÂ’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the rec-

ord and the district courtÂ’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Gray v. Gee

, No. CA-98-4104-CCB (D. Md. Dec. 30, 1998 * ). We dis- pense 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


ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

ver las páginas en versión mobile | web

© Copyright 2014, vLex. All Rights Reserved.

Contents in vLex United States

Explore vLex

For Professionals

For Partners

Company