Lorenzo Nesbitt v. Warden, McCormick Corr Inst
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Lorenzo Nesbitt. [15-7457]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LORENZO NESBITT, a/k/a Lorenzo C. Nesbitt,
Petitioner - Appellant,
WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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.
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).
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May
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.
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
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?