Keener v. Bazzle ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7039
    SHELDON G. KEENER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    RICHARD E. BAZZLE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (6:08-cv-02422-PMD)
    Submitted:    January 12, 2010              Decided:   January 25, 2010
    Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Sheldon G. Keener, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Sheldon G. Keener seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing without prejudice his petition under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2006).    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. Dir., 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 order was entered on the docket
    on August 13, 2008.           The notice of appeal was dated May 27,
    2009, and was filed on June 1, 2009.            See Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
     (1988).       Because Keener failed to file a timely notice
    of appeal or 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7039

Judges: Gregory, Hamilton, Michael, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/25/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024