UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6161
WILLIE ANDERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (4:05-cv-02661-GRA)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to
dismiss Anderson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely
under the AEDPA. 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). “[T]he timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on April 18, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on January
20, 2010. * Because Anderson 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
*
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
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3