In Re: TAMASIN EASTWOOD v. Tamasin Eastwood

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1958
In Re: TAMASIN EASTWOOD,
Debtor.
THOMAS K. PLOFCHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TAMASIN EASTWOOD,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge. (CA-00-0488-A, BK-99-11112)
Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Kenneth Plofchan, Jr., PLOFCHAN & ASSOCIATES, Sterling,
Virginia, for Appellant. Tamasin Eastwood, Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
June 12, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on June 30, 2000. 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
effective date of the district court’s decision. Wilson v. Murray,
806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas K. Plofchan, Jr., appeals from the district court’s
order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Plofchan’s
objection to a discharge and granting Tamasin Eastwood a discharge
in bankruptcy. We have reviewed the record and the opinions below
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. Plofchan v. Eastwood, Nos. CA-00-
0488-A; BK-99-11112 (E.D. Va. June 30, 2000). * We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --