Sheldon Keener v. Richard Bazzle
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SHELDON G. KEENER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (6:08-cv-02422-PMD)
January 12, 2010
January 25, 2010
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sheldon G. Keener, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Sheldon G. Keener seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006). 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). 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 August 13, 2008. The notice of appeal was dated May 27, See Houston v. Lack, 487
2009, and was filed on June 1, 2009. U.S. 266 (1988).
Because Keener failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or 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 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
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?