Butler v. Henry

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7665

JAMES A. BUTLER, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MARK A. HENRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-98-1810-WMN)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Copperthite, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

James A. Butler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. 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 Butler v. Henry, No. CA-98-1810-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 28, 1998).* 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 October 27, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on October 28, 1998. 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 effecive date of the district court’s decision. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).