Case Name: Annette Michelle McCARTHY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Tammy BROWN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-27
Citations: 425 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 11-6199
Parties: Annette Michelle McCARTHY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Tammy BROWN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 248–248

Head Matter:
Annette Michelle McCARTHY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Tammy BROWN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6199.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2011.
Decided: April 27, 2011.
Annette Michelle McCarthy, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Annette Michelle McCarthy seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely her 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. 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 entered on the docket on December 10, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on February 7, 2011. Because McCarthy 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
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. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).