Nsonsa Kisala v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 4th Cir. 1986 . 2 PER CURIAM: Nsonsa Kisala appeals…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2524
NSONSA KISALA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
97-3098-PJM)
Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nsonsa Kisala, Appellant Pro Se. Ralph Michael Smith, SHAWE &
ROSENTHAL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
October 21, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 22, 1999. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date 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
PER CURIAM:
Nsonsa Kisala appeals the district court’s order granting the
Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the rec-
ord and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kisala v.
Nextel Communications, No. CA-97-3098-PJM (D. Md. Oct. 22, 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

-- 2 of 2 --