Gale v. Warden of Perry Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8312
CHRISTOPHER GALE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
JON OZMINT,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (9:07-cv-02850-PMD)
Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 26, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Gale, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Gale seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2000). 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)). Accord Bowles v. Russell,
551 U.S. 205, ___, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2363-66 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on September 2, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on October 8, 2008. * Because Gale failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Gale leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, and we dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
*
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3