Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07731/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07731-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarence Huell
Appellant
Henry McMaster
Appellee
State of South Carolina Human Affairs Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7731

CLARENCE HUELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION; HENRY

MCMASTER, Attorney General,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(6:06-cv-02562-HFF)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Huell, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Donald

John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7731 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/28/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*

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).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Huell seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying

his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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 final order denying Huell’s timely

filed Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket on October 16,

2007. The notice of appeal was filed on November 19, 2007.*

Because Huell 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

Appeal: 07-7731 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/28/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7731 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/28/2008 Pg: 3 of 3