Case Name: Ikeisha PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Catherine KENDALL, for Leath Correctional, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-28
Citations: 600 F. App'x 166
Docket Number: No. 15-6027
Parties: Ikeisha PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Catherine KENDALL, for Leath Correctional, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
Ikeisha PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Catherine KENDALL, for Leath Correctional, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6027.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2015.
Decided: April 28, 2015.
Ikeisha Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ikeisha Perry seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her 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 thirty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. RApp. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was filed on October 14, 2011, and entered on the docket on October 17, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on January 5, 2015. Because Perry failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.