Ray Williams v. McKither Bodison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:09-cv-02695-HFF Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998491994] [10-7519]

Download PDF
Ray Williams v. McKither Bodison Doc. 0 Case: 10-7519 Document: 5 Date Filed: 12/28/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7519 RAY A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner Appellant, v. MCKITHER BODISON, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:09-cv-02695-HFF) Submitted: December 9, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ray A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-7519 Document: 5 Date Filed: 12/28/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Ray A. Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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). "[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement." Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court's order was entered on the docket on June 15, 2010. 2010. * The notice of appeal was filed on October 6, 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. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the 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 (1988). 2 * Case: 10-7519 Document: 5 Date Filed: 12/28/2010 Page: 3 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?