Filed: Mar. 28, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7695 ERICKO TRAVELL HARLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STAN BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:07-cv-01750-DCN) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 28, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7695 ERICKO TRAVELL HARLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STAN BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:07-cv-01750-DCN) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 28, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7695
ERICKO TRAVELL HARLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STAN BURTT, Warden of Lieber
Correctional Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:07-cv-01750-DCN)
Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 28, 2008
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ericko Travell Harley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ericko Travell Harley seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (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 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,
361 U.S. 220,
229 (1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
September 4, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on November 2,
2007.* Because Harley 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 deliverd to prison officials for mailing to the
court. See 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 -