Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06342/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06342-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6342

SERGIO MASSEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JON OZMINT, Director SC Department of Corrections; TIM 

RILEY, Interim Warden of the Perry Correctional Institution,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District 

Judge. (9:08-cv-02666-SB)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sergio Massey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6342 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Sergio Massey 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 (2006) petition. 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). “[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 January 4, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on February 

18, 2010.*

 * 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).

Because Massey 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 adequately presented 

Appeal: 10-6342 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6342 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3