Hulon Dotson v. Warden

Filing 920091117

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7387

HULON DOTSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (4:08-cv-03807-HFF)

Submitted:

October 21, 2009

Decided:

November 17, 2009

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hulon Dotson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Hulon Dotson seeks to appeal the district court's

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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). is "mandatory and jurisdictional." 205, 214 (2007). The district court's order was entered on its docket on April 24, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed, at the Because This appeal period

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.

earliest, on June 16, 2009, * fifty-three days later.

Dotson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension appeal. legal
*

or

reopening

of

the

appeal

period,

we

dismiss

the

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are adequately presented in the materials

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, 276 (1988).

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3