UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1383

EMILIA PORTILLO,

Plaintiff - Appellant, and

JUAN SANTOS PORTILLO,

Plaintiff, versus

NORDSTROM, INCORPORATED; JORGE SILVA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-794-WMN)

Submitted: August 22, 2000 Decided: September 26, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip B. Zipin, Stephani L. Hillman, GAGLIARDO & ZIPIN, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas J. Flaherty, Elizabeth C. Smith, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, Ralph Michael Smith, DECHERT, PRICE & RHOADS, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Emilia Portillo appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of Appellees in Portillo’s sex discrim-

ination action. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af-

firm on the reasoning of the district court. See Portillo v.

Nordstrom, Inc., No. CA-98-794-WMN (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2000).* We deny

Appellee Jorge Silva’s motion to strike portions of Appellant’s

brief. 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 February 25, 2000, the district court’s record shows that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 28, 2000. 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 decision. See Wilson v. Murray,

(4th Cir. 1986).

2