Case Name: Roderick Demeatrice OAKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARK, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-21
Citations: 589 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 14-7601
Parties: Roderick Demeatrice OAKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARK, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
Roderick Demeatrice OAKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARK, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7601.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 21, 2015.
Roderick Demeatrice Oaks, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Demeatrice Oaks seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as time-barred. 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. 2860, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on September 4, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on October 28, 2014. Because Oaks 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.
Because Oaks incorrectly mailed the notice of appeal to a state court, which is under no obligation to forward the notice to the proper district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012), Oaks does not benefit from the prison mailbox rule.