UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7177
RAYMOND JUNIOR LEWELLYN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Wallace W. Dixon,
Magistrate Judge. (1:08-cv-00788-WWD)
Submitted: September 28, 2009 Decided: November 17, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Junior Lewellyn, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Junior Lewellyn seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order dismissing Lewellyn’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition as untimely. * We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because no notice of appeal was 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 magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation
was issued on February 3, 2009. Hearing no objections, the
magistrate judge entered final judgment on the docket on June
11, 2009. Lewellyn filed his untimely objection to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation on June 26, 2009, which the
district court treated as his notice of appeal. Even construed
liberally, however, Lewellyn’s objection to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation falls well short of the notice
*
The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
2
requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). No other document that
could be construed as a notice of appeal was filed within the
appeal period. Because Lewellyn 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 contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3