Davis v. Hamidullah , 200 F. App'x 188 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6045
    MARLIN DAVIS, a/k/a Marlon Davis,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.    Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
    (CA-04-666-3-HFF)
    Submitted:   August 25, 2006            Decided:   September 15, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William VanDercreek, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Marlin Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2000) petition and denying his
    subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.         We dismiss the appeal for
    lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
    filed.
    Parties in a civil action in which the United States or
    a federal agency is a party are accorded sixty days after the entry
    of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal,
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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. Director, 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 final order denying Davis’ timely
    filed Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket on August 2,
    2005.    The notice of appeal, which Davis dated December 26, 2005,
    was late.     Because Davis has 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 Davis’ motion to invite the United
    States Attorney to file a brief on behalf of Appellee Hamidullah.
    We   dispense   with   oral    argument   because   the   facts   and   legal
    - 2 -
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6045

Citation Numbers: 200 F. App'x 188

Judges: Hamilton, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/15/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023