Rudd v. FCI Cumberland, (4th Cir. 1999)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6154 PATRICK EDWIN RUDD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, CUMBERLAND;

WARDEN HENRY; CAPTAIN EY; LIEUTENANT THOMPSON;

MR. CROSS, Unit Manager; MR. PERDUE, Counsel-

or; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION-ELKTON;

WARDEN LAMANNA; CAPTAIN BRIGGS; DIXON,

I.S.M.C.; LIEUTENANT HOAGLUND, Respondents - Appellees.

R. E. WASHINGTON, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-98-

7-AMD)

Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on December 9, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on December 10, 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. Wilson v. Murray

, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 Patrick Edwin Rudd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Patrick Edwin Rudd appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (1994) petition. 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. See Rudd v. FCI Cumberland , No. CA-98-3737-AMD (D. Md. Dec. 10, 1998). * 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

---