Case Name: Lorenzo NESBITT, a/k/a Lorenzo C. Nesbitt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, McCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-20
Citations: 622 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 15-7457
Parties: Lorenzo NESBITT, a/k/a Lorenzo C. Nesbitt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, McCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
Lorenzo NESBITT, a/k/a Lorenzo C. Nesbitt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, McCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and State, Respondent.
No. 15-7457.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2015.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2015.
Lorenzo Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Nesbitt seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 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 80 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. RApp. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). "[Tjhe 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 May 31, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on August 18, 2015. Because Nesbitt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.
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, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).