Thurman Lilly v. Stan Burtt, No. 08-6998 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6998 THURMAN VAN LILLY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STAN BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. 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) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: 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). Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363 (2007). See 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). appeal in accordance with § A failure to file a notice of 2107 and Fed. R. deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. App. P. 4(a) 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, earliest, * on June 7, 2008, thirty-two days later. failed to extension * file or a timely reopening of notice the of appeal appeal or period, the Because Lilly to we See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 2 at obtain dismiss an the appeal. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.