UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7286

ROOSEVELT ISAAC,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL W. MOORE; WILLIAM D. CATOE; JAMES L. HARVEY; LAURIE F. BESSINGER; SIMMS HUNTER RENTZ; JOHN H. BOULWARE; MICHAEL REINER; GAIL REINERS; DENNIS DAVIS; GAIL FRICKS; BARBARA SKEEN; J. GLENN ALEWINE; SCDC DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-98-2826-3-19BC)

Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roosevelt Isaac, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; James E. Parham, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Roosevelt Isaac appeals the district court’s orders denying

relief on his

(West Supp. 1999) complaint and

his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate

judge’s recommendation to deny § 1983 relief, and the court’s order

denying the Rule 59(e) motion and find no reversible error.

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

Isaac v. Moore, No. CA-98-2826-3-19BC (D.S.C. Sept. 2, 1999).* 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

* Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed” on August 20 and August 30, 1999, the district court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on September 2, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the orders were entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decisions. See Wilson v. Murray,

(4th Cir. 1986).

2