Angela G. McKenzie v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 4th Cir. 1986 . 4 PER CURIAM: In No. 99-1778, Angela…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1778
ANGELA G. MCKENZIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SETA CORPORATION; MICHAEL C. MONTAVON, P.C.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 99-1933
ANGELA G. MCKENZIE,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL C. MONTAVON, P.C.,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
SETA CORPORATION,
Defendant.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
No. 99-1934
ANGELA G. MCKENZIE,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SETA CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
MICHAEL C. MONTAVON, P.C.,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-381-A)
Submitted: February 16, 2000 Decided: February 24, 2000
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wendu Mekbib, LAW OFFICES OF WENDU MEKBIB, Vienna, Virginia, for
Appellant. R. Mark Dare, HAZEL & THOMAS, P.C., Falls Church,
Virginia; J. Jonathan Schraub, T. Scott McGraw, SCHRAUB & COMPANY,
CHTD., McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 3 of 4 --

* Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed”
on May 17, 1999, for No. 99-1778, and June 11, 1999 for Nos. 99-
1933/1934, the district court’s records show that these orders were
entered on the docket sheet on May 18, 1999, for No. 99-1778 and
June 15, 1999, for Nos. 99-1933/1934. 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).
4
PER CURIAM:
In No. 99-1778, Angela G. McKenzie appeals from the district
court’s order dismissing her civil action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). In Nos. 99-1933 and 99-1934, the Defendants in the
underlying action appeal from the district court’s order denying
relief on their motions for sanctions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Our
review of the record and the district court’s opinions discloses no
reversible error and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we af-
firm on the reasoning of the district court. See McKenzie v. SETA
Corp. No. CA-99-381-A (E.D. Va. May 18, 1999; June 15, 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

-- 4 of 4 --