Case ID: f-appx_42/html/0613-02.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

Bobby Allen BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dan L. DOVE, Warden; Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-6665.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 25, 2002.
    Decided Aug. 1, 2002.
    
      Bobby Allen Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Bobby Allen Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order of October 22, 2001, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West Supp.2002) habeas petition. Because Bryant failed to timely appeal the district court’s order, and his appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration is without merit, we dismiss.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

Bryant’s notice of appeal from the district court’s final order of October 22, 2001 was filed on April 15, 2002, four months past the deadline for doing so. See Rule 4(a)(1)(B). Although Bryant filed a motion for reconsideration, because it was not filed within ten days of the district court’s final order, it did not toll the period for noting an appeal. See Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 369-70 (4th Cir.2001). As a result, Bryant’s notice of appeal from the dismissal of his § 2241 habeas petition is untimely. See id. Furthermore, while Bryant’s appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration is timely, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss as to that order on the reasoning of the district court. See Bryant v. Dove, CA-01-190-0-24BD (D.S.C. Mar. 14,- 2001). 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.