John Baccus v. Stan Burtt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998674469-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998674656-2]; denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [998705420-2]; denying Motion for the very purpose of habeas corpus [998708833-2]; denying Motion to compel [998711481-2]. Originating case number: 0:06-cv-01912-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998725949]. Mailed to: John Baccus and Derrick K. McFarland. [11-7101]

Appeal: 11-7101

Document: 24

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7101

JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
STAN BURTT, Warden; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (0:06-cv-01912-DCN)

Submitted:

November 15, 2011

Decided:

November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland,
SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Columbia, South
Carolina;
Donald
John
Zelenka,
Deputy
Assistant
Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7101

Document: 24

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John
court’s
judge

Roosevelt

order
and

adopting

denying

petition.

We

Baccus
the

relief

dismiss

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation
on

his

appeal

of

28

lack

the

U.S.C.

for

the

district

magistrate

§ 2254
of

(2006)

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 May 16, 2007.
2011.

The notice of appeal was filed on August 11,

Because Baccus failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss

the

appeal.

We

further

note

that

the

appeal

is

duplicative because Baccus has previously appealed the district
court’s order denying his § 2254 petition.

We deny Baccus’s

motions for a grand jury transcript, to appoint counsel, for
bail or release pending appeal, for “the very purpose of habeas
corpus,” and to compel the return of his legal materials.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because
2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 11-7101

Document: 24

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3