UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7517
WILLIE LEE HAGOOD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CECILIA REYNOLDS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (4:10-cv-02581-RMG)
Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 22, 2012
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Lee Hagood, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Lee Hagood seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
dismissing 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 in civil cases such as this one 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 September 28, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed, at
earliest, on October 31, 2011. * Because Hagood 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
*
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
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3