Raymond Lewellyn v. North Carolina Department of C
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND JUNIOR LEWELLYN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Wallace W. Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-00788-WWD)
September 28, 2009
November 17, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Junior Lewellyn, DelForge, III, Assistant Carolina, for Appellee.
Pro Se. General,
Clarence Joe Raleigh, North
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Raymond Junior Lewellyn seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's petition order as dismissing Lewellyn's We dismiss 28 the U.S.C. appeal § 2254 for (2006) lack of
jurisdiction because no notice of appeal was 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 magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation was issued on February 3, 2009. Hearing no objections, the
magistrate judge entered final judgment on the docket on June 11, 2009. Lewellyn filed his untimely objection to the
magistrate judge's recommendation on June 26, 2009, which the district court treated as his notice of appeal. liberally, judge's however, Lewellyn's falls objection well to Even construed the of magistrate the notice
The parties consented to the magistrate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3(c).
No other document that
could be construed as a notice of appeal was filed within the appeal period. Because Lewellyn 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 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
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?