Blankenship v. Mitchell, (4th Cir. 2006)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6433

GAY EUGENE BLANKENSHIP,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DOUG MITCHELL, Superintendent, Craggy

Correctional,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (1:05-cv-00083)

Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 30, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gay Eugene Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Gay Eugene Blankenship, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28U.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 This appeal period is "mandatory under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, 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 judgment was entered on the docket on January 20, 2006. The notice of appeal, which Blankenship himself dated February 26, 2006, was late. Because Blankenship has 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

---