Case Name: Freddie Junior WELLS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-04
Citations: 124 F. App'x 813
Docket Number: No. 05-6148
Parties: Freddie Junior WELLS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 813–813

Head Matter:
Freddie Junior WELLS, Petitioner — Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 05-6148.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2005.
Decided: April 4, 2005.
Freddie Junior Wells, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Freddie Junior Wells seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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. Director, 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.Edüd 259 (I960)). The district court's order was entered on the docket on November 19, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on January 24, 2005. Because Wells failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Wells' motions for bail pending appeal and for production of documents, and 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. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).