UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7878
JOHN L. MILLS, a/k/a John Lewis Mills,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(9:15-cv-00654-TMC)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John L. Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John L. Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the
order denying his second motion for an extension of time to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
We dismiss the appeal.
Parties are accorded 30 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 denying relief on Mills’ § 2254
petition was entered on the docket on October 7, 2015. The
notice of appeal was filed on November 9, 2015. * Because Mills
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
appeal of the order denying § 2254 relief for lack of
jurisdiction.
* 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
Turning to Mills’ appeal of the district court’s order
denying his motion for an extension of time, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Mills’ informal brief does not challenge
the basis for the district court’s disposition of the second
motion for an extension of time, Mills has forfeited appellate
review of that order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss that portion of the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3