UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6726
HENRY L. ROBINSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT H. MAUNCY, Warden, Northside Correctional
Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:07-cv-00061-SB)
Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry L. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry L. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on 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). See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2107 (2000). 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)). Accord Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on March 24, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on April 30,
2008. * Because Robinson 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
*
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
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3