Huggins v. Va Dept Corrections

Filing 920060908

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6765 TERESA B. HUGGINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT ESTAP, Warden, OF CORRECTIONS; TAMMY Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (3:03-cv-00855-DGL) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teresa B. Huggins, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Teresa B. Huggins seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000).1 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). and jurisdictional." This appeal period is "mandatory 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 March 31, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on June 13, 2005, Because Huggins failed to file a timely seventy-four days later.2 notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral The parties consented to proceed before a United States magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (2000). 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 1 - 2 - argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?