Case Name: Michael Dwayne ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James C. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-13
Citations: 59 F. App'x 592
Docket Number: No. 02-7700
Parties: Michael Dwayne ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James C. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 59
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
Michael Dwayne ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James C. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7700.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2003.
Decided March 13, 2003.
Michael Dwayne Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Dwayne Rogers seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failing to particularize his claims. 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. RApp. 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.Ed.2d 259 (I960)).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on September 6, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on October 28, 2002. Because Rogers failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of 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.
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).