Donald Eugene Medlin v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v. Robinson, 361…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7877
DONALD EUGENE MEDLIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JAY CLARK,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp,
Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-393-1)
Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH,
Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
Rehearing granted, April 7, 2004

-- 1 of 3 --

*This case was decided by magistrate judge upon consent of the
parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Donald Eugene Medlin seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s order dismissing his petition for habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). * 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 magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on
October 16, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed by Medlin’s
attorney on November 17, 2003. Because Medlin failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of
the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --