Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08114/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08114-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Davis
Appellant
State of South Carolina
Appellee
Warden Lee Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8114

KEVIN DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WARDEN LEE CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

Judge. (8:08-cv-02448-SB)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 26, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8114 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/26/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 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 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 (1978) (quoting United States v. 

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on September 8, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on 

November 18, 2009.

* Because Davis 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 

 

*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: 09-8114 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/26/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8114 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/26/2010 Pg: 3 of 3