Case Name: Jerry W. NELSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry McMaster, Attorney General; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-24
Citations: 275 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 08-6124
Parties: Jerry W. NELSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry McMaster, Attorney General; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 189–189

Head Matter:
Jerry W. NELSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; Henry McMaster, Attorney General; Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-6124.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2008.
Decided: April 24, 2008.
Jerry W. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerry W. Nelson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) 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, 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 (1960)).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on October 10, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on December 27, 2007. Because Nelson 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 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
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, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).