Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07457/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07457-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7457

LORENZO NESBITT, a/k/a Lorenzo C. Nesbitt,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

STATE

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(8:11-cv-00920-RBH)

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7457 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Nesbitt seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 

31, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on August 18, 2015.*

Because Nesbitt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

 * 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).

Appeal: 15-7457 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7457 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3