John Mills v. Warden Lieber Correctional In

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:15-cv-00654-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999766368]. Mailed to: John Mills. [15-7878]

Appeal: 15-7878

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7878

JOHN L. MILLS, a/k/a John Lewis Mills,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(9:15-cv-00654-TMC)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 2, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John L. Mills, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Melody
Jane
Brown,
Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7878

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John L. Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the
order denying his second motion for an extension of time to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
We dismiss the appeal.
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 denying relief on Mills’ § 2254
petition was entered on the docket on October 7, 2015.

The

notice of appeal was filed on November 9, 2015. *

Because Mills

failed

to

to

extension
appeal

of

file
or

a

timely

reopening
the

order

of

notice
the

of

appeal

appeal

denying

§ 2254

or

period,
relief

we

obtain

dismiss

for

lack

an
the
of

jurisdiction.

*

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: 15-7878

Doc: 13

Turning

Filed: 03/02/2016

to

Mills’

Pg: 3 of 3

appeal

of

the

district

court’s

order

denying his motion for an extension of time, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.
Cir. R. 34(b).

See 4th

Because Mills’ informal brief does not challenge

the basis for the district court’s disposition of the second
motion for an extension of time, Mills has forfeited appellate
review of that order.
appealability
dispense

and

with

contentions

are

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

dismiss

oral

that

argument

adequately

portion
because

presented

in

of
the
the

the

appeal.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3