Case Name: Melvin Cornnell DODSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, DEERFIELD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-01
Citations: 433 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 11-6202
Parties: Melvin Cornnell DODSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, DEERFIELD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 433
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
Melvin Cornnell DODSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, DEERFIELD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6202.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2011.
Decided: June 1, 2011.
Melvin Cornnell Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Cornnell Dodson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his 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. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on December 13, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on January 24, 2011. Because Dodson 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.