Bernard Murphy v. GEORGE T. HAGAN, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7308
BERNARD MURPHY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE T. HAGAN, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
WARDEN OF ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:08-cv-02432-HMH)
Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 16, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing 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). 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 June 11, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on July 14, 2009.* Because Murphy 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
* See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

-- 2 of 2 --