Lorenzo Nesbitt v. Warden, McCormick Corr Inst

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999677714-2], updating fee code Originating case number: 8:11-cv-00920-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999703535]. Mailed to: Lorenzo Nesbitt. [15-7457]

Appeal: 15-7457

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7457

LORENZO NESBITT, a/k/a Lorenzo C. Nesbitt,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
STATE
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(8:11-cv-00920-RBH)

Submitted:

November 17, 2015

Decided: November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se.
William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Donald
John
Zelenka,
Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7457

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Nesbitt seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed.
Parties

are

accorded

30

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
31, 2012.

The notice of appeal was filed on August 18, 2015. *

Because Nesbitt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

*

the

facts

and

We

legal

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

Appeal: 15-7457

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 11/20/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3