Case ID: f-appx_88/html/0607-01.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

Donald Eugene MEDLIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jay CLARK, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 03-7877.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2004.
    Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., Cunningham, Dedmond, Petersen & Smith, Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Donald Eugene Medlin seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 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 (I960)).

The magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on October 16, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed by Medlin’s attorney on November 17, 2003. Because Medlin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 
      
       This case was decided by magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000).