Lorenzo Nesbitt, a/k/a Lorenzo C. Nesbitt v. Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7457
LORENZO NESBITT, a/k/a Lorenzo C. Nesbitt,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
STATE
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(8:11-cv-00920-RBH)
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenzo Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Nesbitt seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 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). “[T]he timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May
31, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on August 18, 2015.*
Because Nesbitt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
* 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 delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --