Davis v. Exxon Company, USA ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-1695
    RICHARD W. DAVIS, JR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    EXXON COMPANY, USA; RICHARD HARVIN;
    JOHN BIAVASCHI,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-98-1471-A)
    Submitted:   December 22, 1999            Decided:   January 12, 2000
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kimberly L. Bradley, ABATO, RUBENSTEIN & ABATO, P.A., Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellant. Richard J. Hafets, PIPER & MARBURY L.L.P.,
    Baltimore, Maryland; Charles B. Wayne, PIPER & MARBURY L.L.P.,
    Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard W. Davis, Jr., appeals the district court's order
    granting summary judgment in his former employer's favor in this
    action alleging age discrimination, retaliation, breach of con-
    tract, and defamation.   We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the
    joint appendices, the supplemental appendix, and the district
    court's opinion and find no reversible error.      Accordingly, we
    affirm on the reasoning of the district court.   See Davis v. Exxon
    Company, USA, No. CA-98-1471-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 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 order is marked as "filed" on
    April 16, 1999, the district court's records show that it was
    entered on the docket sheet on April 20, 1999. 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, 
    806 F.2d 1232
    , 1234-35 (4th Cir.
    1986).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-1695

Filed Date: 1/12/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014