Deborah Sanders v. Warden of Leath Corr. Inst.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-02403-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999788638]. Mailed to: D. Sanders. [15-7599]

Appeal: 15-7599

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7599

DEBORAH J. SANDERS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
SOUTH CAROLINA, State of,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-02403-DCN)

Submitted:

March 14, 2016

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

April 5, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborah J. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Appeal: 15-7599

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7599

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Deborah J. Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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
August

2,

2015.

The

notice

earliest, on October 7, 2015.

of

appeal

was

filed,

at

the

Because Sanders failed to file a

timely notice of appeal or 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

*

Additionally, Sanders failed to file timely objections to
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, despite having
been properly warned of the consequences of failing to do so.
Thus, she has also waived appellate review of her claims.
See
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

3

Appeal: 15-7599

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

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

4