UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7488
TERENCE TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a T. Terell Bryan, a/k/a Terence
Bryan,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
SCDC; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:08-cv-01590-TLW)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell,
Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA,
Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terence Terell Bryan seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and granting the South Carolina Department of
Corrections’ motion for summary judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) 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). “[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 March 16, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on
October 20, 2010. * Because Bryan failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we deny Bryan’s
motions for a certificate of appealability and to appoint
*
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
counsel. 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