Calhoun-El v. EMSA Correctional

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Calhoun-El v. EMSA Correctional

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6662

JAMES CALHOUN-EL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EMSA CORRECTIONAL CARE; GAIL SHORE; DOTTIE TIBBLE; MARLENE SHELBY; K. NSUBUGN; DEREFE TESFAYE; JULIUS BOATANG; SEBLU ZERA YOHANNES; M. AYALEW; RONALD HITCHINSON; JAMES V. PEGUESE; MAJOR CLARK; CAPTAIN CHANEY; CAPTAIN KOPPEL; LIEUTENANT MARTIN; D. INGRAM, Ser- geant; SERGEANT COWANS; OFFICER SAMPSON; M. RIDDLE, Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-99- 1266-L)

Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Calhoun-El, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Joseph Crawford, GODARD, WEST & ADELMAN, P.C., Rockville, Maryland; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

James Calhoun-El appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983

(West Supp. 2000) complaint. 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 Calhoun-El v. EMSA Correctional Care, No.

CA-99-1266-L (D. Md. May 2, 2000).* 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 order is marked as “filed” on April 13, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on May 2, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the 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).

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished