Olsen v. Angelone

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6467 HENRY CHRISTIAN OLSEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-310-7) Submitted: August 3, 2005 Decided: August 19, 2005 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Christian Olsen, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Christian Olsen seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 10, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on March 14, 2005. Because Olsen failed to file a timely notice of appeal* or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are * In addition, we note that this appeal is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as a previous appeal of the same district court order was previously dismissed. See Olsen v. Angelone, No. 02-6301 (4th Cir. May 29, 2002) (unpublished). - 2 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -