Case Name: Samuel TEMONEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Johnny SAPP; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-17
Citations: 241 F. App'x 974
Docket Number: No. 07-6724
Parties: Samuel TEMONEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Johnny SAPP; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 241
Pages: 974–975

Head Matter:
Samuel TEMONEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Johnny SAPP; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6724.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 17, 2007.
Samuel Temoney, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Temoney seeks to appeal the district court's order denying reconsideration of its order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 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 March 20, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on April 24, 2007. Because Temoney 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).