John Baccus v. Stan Burtt, No. 11-7101 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7101 JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS, Petitioner Appellant, v. STAN BURTT, Warden; HENRY D. MCMASTER, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (0:06-cv-01912-DCN) Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: John court s judge Roosevelt order and adopting denying petition. We Baccus the relief dismiss the seeks to appeal recommendation on his appeal of 28 lack the U.S.C. for the district magistrate § 2254 of (2006) 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 requirement. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order was entered on the docket on May 16, 2007. 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on August 11, Because Baccus failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We further note that the appeal is duplicative because Baccus has previously appealed the district court s order denying his § 2254 petition. We deny Baccus s motions for a grand jury transcript, to appoint counsel, for bail or release pending appeal, for the very purpose of habeas corpus, and to compel the return of his legal materials. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.
