                                UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 98-7520



LARRY SMOOT,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


OFFICER MASON, 11 to 7 a.m. shift, Maryland
House of Corrections - Annex; UNKNOWN OFFICER,
11 to 7 a.m. shift, Maryland House of Correc-
tions - Annex,

                                               Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-98-3323-WMN)


Submitted:     March 11, 1999                 Decided:   March 16, 1999


Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Larry Smoot, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Larry Smoot, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998).   We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is

frivolous.    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Smoot v. Mason, No. CA-98-3323-WMN (D. Md.

Oct. 8, 1998).*    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.




                                                          DISMISSED




     *
       Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
Oct. 7, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on Oct. 8, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and
79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that
the order was physically 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
