Opinion
No. 08-6998.
Submitted: November 20, 2008.
Decided: November 26, 2008.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cv-00999-JFA).
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thurman Van Lilly, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thurman Van Lilly seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and motion to reconsider that denial. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
The time limits for noting an appeal in a civil case are set forth in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which effectuates 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (2000). See Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363 (2007). 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). A failure to file a notice of appeal in accordance with § 2107 and Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction.Bowles, 127 S. Ct. at 2366.
The district court's order was entered on its docket on May 6, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on June 7, 2008, thirty-two days later. Because Lilly 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.
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
DISMISSED