Case Name: Terry Joel BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruce Kelly HAMM; Brenda Dudley; Tezra Egleton, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-01
Citations: 433 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 11-6415
Parties: Terry Joel BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruce Kelly HAMM; Brenda Dudley; Tezra Egleton, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 433
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
Terry Joel BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruce Kelly HAMM; Brenda Dudley; Tezra Egleton, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-6415.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2011.
Decided: June 1, 2011.
Terry Joel Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Terry Joel Burgess seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. 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 February 4, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on March 17, 2011. Because Burgess 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).