UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6723
THURMAN VAN LILLY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FRED THOMPSON, Associate Warden; MORRIS ELMORE, Lieutenant
EHSO; JAMES BLACKWELL, DHO; MCKITHER BODISON, Associate
Warden; D. NUNNALLY, Captain SMU; EUGENE SKIPPER,
Contraband; S. JENKINS; L. RANDALL, Grievances; D.
MCCOMMONS, Contraband; DORIS GANTT, Property Control,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 09-6775
THURMAN VAN LILLY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT; STAN BURTT; ADRIAN MARTELL; R. REEVES; ROBERT
WARD; FRED B. THOMPSON; THIERRY D. NETTLES; TIM B. ROOF;
GILBERT EMRHEIN; MR. WILLIAMS; MR. POWELL; YVETTE BLOWE,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN WARD; C. REEVES
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (2:08-cv-00266-JFA; 2:07-CV-01700-JFA)
Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thurman Van Lilly, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Thurman Van Lilly seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaints for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We dismiss the
appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal
were not timely filed.
The time limits for noting an appeal in a civil case
are set forth in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, which effectuates 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (2006). See
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208 (2007). 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). A failure to file a notice of
appeal in accordance with § 2107 deprives the appellate court of
jurisdiction. Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214.
The district court’s orders were entered on the docket
on March 10, 2009. The notices of appeal were filed on
April 14, 2009, the date they were received in the prison mail
room. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
276 (1988). Because Lilly failed to file timely notices of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument
3
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
4