Joseph Grate v. Gene Johnson

Filing 920080916

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6771 JOSEPH MICHAEL GRATE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00020-JBF-FBS) Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Michael Grate, Appellant Pro Se. James Robert Bryden, II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Michael Grate seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting 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). 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 October 18, 2007. 2008.* The notice of appeal was filed on April 17, Because Grate failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the contentions 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 * 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?