Williams v. Smith , 388 F. App'x 261 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6797
STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT W. SMITH, Supt.; SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, Theodis
Beck,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00757-TDS-RAE)
Submitted: June 25, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010
Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
denying relief on Williams’ 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 October 28, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on April
20, 2009. 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. Williams’ pending motions for a
transcript at Government expense, for a certificate of
appealability, to proceed in forma pauperis, and to expedite the
appeal are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3