Isaac Gray v. Gee, (4th Cir. 1999)
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-
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court’s
Wilson v. Murray
, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM:
Isaac Gray appeals the district court’s order denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the rec-
ord and the district court’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