Court Opinion

ID: 181898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-12-28 20:55:10+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:57.283107
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 10-7519

RAY A. WILLIAMS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

MCKITHER BODISON,

                Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:09-cv-02695-HFF)

Submitted:   December 9, 2010              Decided:   December 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

                Ray A. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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).                 “[T]he timely

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional

requirement.”       Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

                The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on June 15, 2010.         The notice of appeal was filed on October 6,

2010. *    Because Williams 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

      *
       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
(1988).

                                        2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                    3