Case Name: Ernest DOE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-29
Citations: 11 F. App'x 70
Docket Number: No. 00-7693
Parties: Ernest DOE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
Ernest DOE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 00-7693.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 22, 2001.
Decided March 29, 2001.
Ernest Doe, pro se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, for appellees.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ernest Doe seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying relief on Doe's 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Doe's notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed.RApp.P. 4(a)(1), 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 Corrections, 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 2, 2000. Doe's notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on November 13, 2000. Because Doe 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 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.