                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7634



WILLIAM RAY JOHNSON,

                                               Plaintiff- Appellant,

          versus


G. K. HEGE, Sheriff; F. MEDLIN, Detective;
SERGEANT WESTMORELAND, Detective; B. RAMKIN,
Detective; T. KATES, Detective; K. BLACK,
Detective; D. OWENS, Lieutenant,

                                             Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-99-950-1)


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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Ray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William Ray Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.   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

Johnson v. Hege, No. CA-99-950-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 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




     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
November 19, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on November 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
