Williams v. Bodison , 406 F. App'x 706 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7519
RAY A. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MCKITHER BODISON,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:09-cv-02695-HFF)
Submitted: December 9, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ray A. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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). “[T]he timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on June 15, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on October 6,
2010. * Because Williams 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266(1988).
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3