Blankenship v. Mitchell , 196 F. App'x 225 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6433
GAY EUGENE BLANKENSHIP,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DOUG MITCHELL, Superintendent, Craggy
Correctional,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00083)
Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 30, 2006
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gay Eugene Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gay Eugene Blankenship, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory
and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434
U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.
220, 229 (1960)).
The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket
on January 20, 2006. The notice of appeal, which Blankenship
himself dated February 26, 2006, was late. Because Blankenship has
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension
or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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
- 2 -