Case ID: f-appx_643/html/0299-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Deborah J. SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina, State of, Respondent.
    No. 15-7599.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 14, 2016.
    Decided: April 5, 2016.
    Deborah J. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Donald.John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Deborah J. Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 2, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on October 7, 2015. Because Sanders failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED. 
      
       Additionally, Sanders failed to file timely objections' to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, despite having been properly warned of the consequences of failing to do so. Thus, she has also waived appellate review of her claims. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985).