Jomo Bailey v. Richard Bazzle

Filing 920090227

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8554 JOMO RASHAD BAILEY, Petitioner Appellant, v. RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Warden at Perry Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (4:07-cv-03646-MBS) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jomo Rashad Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jomo court's judge order and Rashad adopting Bailey the seeks to appeal of the the district magistrate (2000) recommendation on his 28 for denying We relief the U.S.C. lack 2254 of petition. dismiss appeal 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). is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) This appeal period Browder v. Dir., Dep't of (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court's order was entered on the docket on October 1, 2008. 12, 2008. * The notice of appeal was filed on December Because Bailey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 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)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). * 2 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?