UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

(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

(2000). See

Bowles v. Russell,

(2007). 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). A failure to file a notice of

appeal in accordance with § 2107 and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)

deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. Bowles,

.

The district court’s order was entered on its docket

on May 6, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed, at the

earliest, * on June 7, 2008, thirty-two days later. Because Lilly

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the

* See Houston v. Lack,

(1988).

2 appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3