UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6665
BOBBY ALLEN BRYANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DAN L. DOVE, Warden; JANET RENO, Attorney
General of the United States,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-01-190-0-24BD)
Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Allen Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Allen Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order
of October 22, 2001, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation
to dismiss his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West Supp. 2002) habeas
petition. Because Bryant failed to timely appeal the district
court’s order, and his appeal from the denial of his motion for
reconsideration is without merit, we dismiss.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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). This appeal period is
“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of
Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.
Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
Bryant’s notice of appeal from the district court’s final
order of October 22, 2001 was filed on April 15, 2002, four months
past the deadline for doing so. See Rule 4(a)(1)(B). Although
Bryant filed a motion for reconsideration, because it was not filed
within ten days of the district court’s final order, it did not
toll the period for noting an appeal. See Panhorst v. United
States, 241 F.3d 367, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2001). As a result, Bryant’s
notice of appeal from the dismissal of his § 2241 habeas petition
is untimely. See id. Furthermore, while Bryant’s appeal from the
2
denial of his motion for reconsideration is timely, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss as to that order on the
reasoning of the district court. See Bryant v. Dove, CA-01-190-0-
24BD (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3