CA-99-549-3-20BC Charles Wayne Wade, Jr v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 4th Cir. 1986 . 3 PER CURIAM: Charles Wade, Jr.…

Filed: February 17, 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7606
(CA-99-549-3-20BC)
Charles Wayne Wade, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
Escod Industries, etc., et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed February 14, 2000, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, section 3, line 3 -- the district court
number is corrected to read “CA-99-549-3-20BC.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7606
CHARLES WAYNE WADE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ESCOD INDUSTRIES AT EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTI-
TUTION; GENE BAKER; GEORGE BOSS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-99-549-3-20BC)
Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 14, 2000
Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Wayne Wade, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ronald James Tryon,
PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina;
Andrew Foster McLeod, HARRIS & MCLEOD, Cheraw, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
October 26, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on October 28, 1999. 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 Fed. R. Civ.
P. 58 and 79(a); Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).
3
PER CURIAM:
Charles Wade, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying
Wade’s motions to compel and denying relief on Wade’s complaint
alleging defamation; breach of contract; violations of 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 1983 (West Supp. 1999); and Title VII. We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wade v.
Escod Industries, No. CA-99-547-3-20BC (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 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

-- 3 of 3 --