UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1550

CHARLES W. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE; J & E ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; BERNARD BERGER; REBECCA BARNES; CHARLES E. SMITH MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

WILLIAM C. DALEY, Secretary for United States Department of Commerce; TODD DICKERSON, Com- missioner, United States Patent Office; NICH- OLAS GODICI, Deputy Commissioner of United States Patent Office; WILLIAM JENKINS; THOMAS MAGNETTI, Esquire, United States Department of Commerce; LAURA GUILLESPIE, Esquire, United States Department of Commerce; CATHERINE KESSMEIR, Esquire, United States Patent Of- fice; SYDNEY ROSE, Personnel, United States Patent Office; LAVON PROCTOR, Human Resources, United States PTO; CALIB J.R. GARLAND, Secu- rity, United States PTO; JOHN J. LOVE, Direc- tor Group, United States PTO; WYNN COGGINS, United States Patent Office; JENNIFER SADULA, United States Patent Office; RONALD STRIGHT, United States Patent Office; SHARON FINKEL, United States Patent Office; WILLIAM NOGGLE, United States PTO; KELLY O’HARA, United States Patent Office; CHERYL HUSEMAN, United States PTO; CAREY O'CONNOR, United States PTO; CHRIS RODRIGUEZ, United States PTO; CORRINE MCDER- MOTT, United States PTO; KIMBERLY ASHER, United States PTO,

Defendants.

No. 00-1868

CHARLES W. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE; J & E ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; BERNARD BERGER; REBECCA BARNES; CHARLES E. SMITH MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

WILLIAM C. DALEY, Secretary for United States Department of Commerce; TODD DICKERSON, Com- missioner, United States Patent Office; NICH- OLAS GODICI, Deputy Commissioner of United States Patent Office; WILLIAM JENKINS; THOMAS MAGNETTI, Esquire, United States Department of Commerce; LAURA GUILLESPIE, Esquire, United States Department of Commerce; CATHERINE KESSMEIR, Esquire, United States Patent Of- fice; SYDNEY ROSE, Personnel, United States Patent Office; LAVON PROCTOR, Human Resources, United States PTO; CALIB J.R. GARLAND, Secu- rity, United States PTO; JOHN J. LOVE, Direc- tor Group, United States PTO; WYNN COGGINS, United States Patent Office; JENNIFER SADULA, United States Patent Office; RONALD STRIGHT, United States Patent Office; SHARON FINKEL, United States Patent Office; WILLIAM NOGGLE, United States PTO; KELLY O’HARA, United States

2 Patent Office; CHERYL HUSEMAN, United States PTO; CAREY O'CONNOR, United States PTO; CHRIS RODRIGUEZ, United States PTO; CORRINE MCDER- MOTT, United States PTO; KIMBERLY ASHER, United States PTO,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-109-A)

Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 28, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles W. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Edward John Martin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Jeffrey William Pagano, KING, PAGANO & HARRISON, New York, New York; Steven R. Schaars, KING, PAGANO & HARRISON, Washington, D.C.; Ralph Nicholas Boccarosse, Jr., SICILIANO, ELLIS, DYER & BOCCAROSSE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

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

3 PER CURIAM:

Charles W. Anderson appeals the district court’s orders grant-

ing Defendants’ motions to dismiss and motions for summary judg-

ment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Daley, No. CA-00-

109-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2000; Apr. 26, 2000; May 24, 2000; June

13, 2000; June 27, 2000).* We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

* 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 orders. See Wilson v. Murray,

(4th Cir. 1986).

4