Terence Bryan v. SCDC, No. 10-7488 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7488 TERENCE TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a T. Terell Bryan, a/k/a Terence Bryan, Petitioner Appellant, v. SCDC; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS, Respondents Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:08-cv-01590-TLW) Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terence court s order Terell adopting recommendation and Bryan the granting seeks to magistrate the South appeal the judge s Carolina district report and Department of Corrections motion for summary judgment on 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). [T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). requirement. The district court s order was entered on the docket on March 16, 2009. October 20, 2010. * The notice of appeal was filed on Because Bryan failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. motions for a certificate of Accordingly, we deny Bryan s appealability * and to appoint 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 counsel. 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.