Thurman Lilly v. Stan Burtt

Filing 920081126

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6998

THURMAN VAN LILLY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STAN BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cv-00999-JFA)

Submitted:

November 20, 2008

Decided:

November 26, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thurman Van Lilly, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Thurman Van Lilly seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and motion to reconsider that denial. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The time limits for noting an appeal in a civil case are set forth in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which effectuates 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (2000). See

Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363 (2007).

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). appeal in accordance with § A failure to file a notice of 2107 and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)

deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. Ct. at 2366.

Bowles, 127 S.

The district court's order was entered on its docket on May 6, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed, at the

earliest, * on June 7, 2008, thirty-two days later. failed to file or a timely of notice the of appeal or

Because Lilly to obtain an the

extension
*

reopening

appeal

period,

we

dismiss

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

2

appeal. legal before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

contentions the court

would

process. DISMISSED

3