Case Name: Sentellus McDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randle JONES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-21
Citations: 600 F. App'x 135
Docket Number: No. 15-6125
Parties: Sentellus McDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randle JONES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Sentellus McDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randle JONES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-6125.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2015.
Decided: April 21, 2015.
Sentellus McDonald, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sentellus McDonald seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 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. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). "[T]he timely fil ing 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 November 10, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on January 26, 2015. Because McDonald 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED. ,
The notice of appeal is undated. For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date of the postmark on the envelope containing 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).