Case Name: Kevin DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-26
Citations: 367 F. App'x 456
Docket Number: No. 09-8114
Parties: Kevin DAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 456–457

Head Matter:
Kevin DAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 09-8114.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2010.
Kevin Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Donald John Zelen-ka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 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 September 8, 2009, 2009 WL 2899011. 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 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).