Bailey v. Bazzle , 312 F. App'x 548 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8554
JOMO RASHAD BAILEY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Warden at Perry Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (4:07-cv-03646-MBS)
Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jomo Rashad Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jomo Rashad Bailey seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and 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. 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 October 1, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on December
12, 2008. * Because Bailey 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
*
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)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266 (1988).
2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3