McKinley Williams v. Robert Stevenson

Filing 920100226

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8175

MCKINLEY WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden BRCI, 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-02647-HFF)

Submitted:

February 18, 2009

Decided:

February 26, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: McKinley Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing 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." 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 24, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on

December 1, 2009. *

Because Williams 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 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 (1988).
*

2

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3