UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7731
CLARENCE HUELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION; HENRY
MCMASTER, Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:06-cv-02562-HFF)
Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence Huell, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Donald
John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Huell seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying
his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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. Dir., 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 final order denying Huell’s timely
filed Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket on October 16,
2007. The notice of appeal was filed on November 19, 2007.*
Because Huell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
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 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -